The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: mightyfletch on July 18, 2019, 06:31:36 PM

Title: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 18, 2019, 06:31:36 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Danang on July 18, 2019, 07:30:44 PM
The Breathing Earth will confirm Universal Acceleration, as well as other subjects, e.g. tides, sea waves etc.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 07:42:11 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.
They claim that "Celestial Gravitation" causes the variation of g with altitude:
Quote
TIDAL EFFECTS
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

But
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 18, 2019, 08:21:09 PM
The Breathing Earth will confirm Universal Acceleration, as well as other subjects, e.g. tides, sea waves etc.

Are you going to defend your viewpoint or just casually mention some random book?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Danang on July 18, 2019, 08:56:01 PM
The Breathing Earth will confirm Universal Acceleration, as well as other subjects, e.g. tides, sea waves etc.

Are you going to defend your viewpoint or just casually mention some random book?

Even this time Rabinoz didn't respond my post as usually he did. I guess he was nervous when I mentioned "the breathing earth" ;D

Try again 8)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 18, 2019, 09:45:25 PM


Are you going to defend your viewpoint or just casually mention some random book?
[/quote]

Even this time Rabinoz didn't respond my post as usually he did. I guess he was nervous when I mentioned "the breathing earth" ;D

Try again 8)
[/quote]

The Breathing Earth...so FEers think the CO2 cycle creates gravity?  How 'bout you defend your viewpoint?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 10:14:28 PM
The Breathing Earth will confirm Universal Acceleration, as well as other subjects, e.g. tides, sea waves etc.

Are you going to defend your viewpoint or just casually mention some random book?
Even this time Rabinoz didn't respond my post as usually he did.
Why should I respond to all your posts?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on July 20, 2019, 04:43:57 AM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.


(http://)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 20, 2019, 11:56:03 AM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.


(http://)

English? 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 20, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 20, 2019, 02:27:16 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.

If I had, would you believe me?

Or would you only believe the Earth to be a globe if you could see these differences in Earth's gravity for your self?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2019, 03:48:33 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

This experiment is uncontrolled. There are no examples of it being performed in a vaccum.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 20, 2019, 03:53:28 PM
This experiment is uncontrolled. There are no examples of it being performed in a vaccum.
I have already demonstrated that that is completely irrelevant.

The buoyant force, and more precisely, the variation of it, is insignificant for any sufficiently dense object.
Even water is roughly 1000x as dense as air.
That means the buoyant force is only roughly 0.001 x (0.1%) that of the downwards force.
Even if the atmospheric pressure varied by 10%, that would only amount to a 0.01% change in the apparent weight due to the variation in the buoyant force.

So that is clearly not the cause of the much larger (~0.5%) observed variation.

If you instead go to something much more dense like steel, with a density roughly 10000 x that of air, the buoyant force and its variation is even less significant.

You will need a better excuse than it not being done in a vacuum as the air is clearly not an issue.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2019, 04:08:14 PM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree sought in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: inquisitive on July 20, 2019, 04:28:13 PM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree seen in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.
It does not. This is your usual method of trying to confuse.

Still waiting for your proposals to determine the size and shape of the earth without which you have no credibility.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2019, 04:50:46 PM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree seen in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.
It does not. This is your usual method of trying to confuse.

Still waiting for your proposals to determine the size and shape of the earth without which you have no credibility.

I love it when you guys try to change topics in a thread. It says "I have nothing to contribute and can't really contradict what is being discussed, but look at this!"
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 20, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.
The vast majority of that has no effect.
The main thing listed there which will affect it is the temperature as some electronic components will have their properties change with temperature and some mechanical components will also have the properties change.
The air pressure and humidity don't directly affect the scale. Instead they affect the buoyant force. Air viscocity has no effect on the scale and instead is effected by similar things to the buoyant force. You need to calibrate for that to ensure you measure the mass of the object correctly, and even then there are variations due to different objects having different densities and thus different contributions from the buoyant force per unit mass.

But these effects are minor compared to the variation of gravity.

Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree sought in the experiment.
What fraction of a degree?
We aren't measuring angles. We are measuring acceleration.

The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.
No it doesn't. If you want to assert it does you will need to provide evidence of these massive variations.

Again, I have shown the effect of the atmosphere is negligible. The only time it would be significant is if you were trying to weigh a balloon or switched the atmosphere to water or the like.
In order for temperature to be an issue you need to go to quite extreme temperatures, like in a furnace.

So far the only thing that indicates the current experiments are not sufficient are your claims because you can't explain the variations in gravity on a FE.


And of course that ignores the experiments with absolute gravimeters which directly measure the gravitational acceleration.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 12:18:06 AM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree sought in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.

A vacuum chamber is not needed.  You zero the scale first with air already factored in, then measure the weight of a specific mass.  This effectively throws out any variations due to air pressure or density. 

Can a FEer explain how there is less gravitational force at the equator than at the poles?  Tom, surely this isn't the first time you've been faced with this question.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 12:25:29 AM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree sought in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.

A vacuum chamber is not needed.  You zero the scale first with air already factored in, then measure the weight of a specific mass.  This effectively throws out any variations due to air pressure or density. 

Can a FEer explain how there is less gravitational force at the equator than at the poles?

They don't calibrate the scales. See the article posted. https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 12:32:14 AM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree sought in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.

A vacuum chamber is not needed.  You zero the scale first with air already factored in, then measure the weight of a specific mass.  This effectively throws out any variations due to air pressure or density. 

Can a FEer explain how there is less gravitational force at the equator than at the poles?

They don't calibrate the scales. See the article posted. https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

There are additional factors beyond lattitude that influence gravitational force. There areas on Earth with more density that have a greater gravitational pull.  The nome experiment reflects this.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 12:37:16 AM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree sought in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.

A vacuum chamber is not needed.  You zero the scale first with air already factored in, then measure the weight of a specific mass.  This effectively throws out any variations due to air pressure or density. 

Can a FEer explain how there is less gravitational force at the equator than at the poles?

They don't calibrate the scales. See the article posted. https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

There are additional factors beyond lattitude that influence gravitational force. There areas on Earth with more density that have a greater gravitational pull.  The nome experiment reflects this.

That one is addressed in a different article: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Some interesting quotes there. The gravimeter is really a seismometer and it is detecting signals in the low frequency band as 'gravity waves' and 'infra-gravity waves' under a theory that gravity would cause variations as picked up by a seismometer. The gravity anomalies seem to be correlated with the seismic zones of the world.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 12:49:37 AM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree sought in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.


A vacuum chamber is not needed.  You zero the scale first with air already factored in, then measure the weight of a specific mass.  This effectively throws out any variations due to air pressure or density. 

Can a FEer explain how there is less gravitational force at the equator than at the poles?


They don't calibrate the scales. See the article posted. https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude


There are additional factors beyond lattitude that influence gravitational force. There areas on Earth with more density that have a greater gravitational pull.  The nome experiment reflects thi

That one is addressed in a different article: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Some interesting quotes there. The gravimeter is really a seismometer and it is detecting signals in the low frequency band as 'gravity waves' and 'infra-gravity waves' under a theory that gravity would cause variations as picked up by a seismometer. The gravity anomalies seem to be correlated with the seismic zones of the world.
[/quote]

If a 1kg weight is measured with the same precise scale at the same lattitude with the passage of low and high atmospheric pressure and it resulted in the same measurement, you would have to concede that atmospheric pressure changes are not why things weight more at the equator.

Here's the other weight experiment done with a properly calibrated scale measuring at different lattitudes. 



I think you wouldn't accept it anyway, would you?  You still wouldn't be able to explain it. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM
That is merely a casual version of the weight experiments done 300 years ago. They didn't use vaccumes then and no one is using vaccumes in the present version. The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around. Many experiments have been tried to detect such violations, from high hights or even from gravity sources such as the Sun, to which they speculate that selective gravity is occuring to maintain the EP through 'preferred curves' in spacetime.

The Weight Variations by Latitude is an ancient hold-over, from before the modern EP experiments. The few types of experiments cited in favor of 'gravity' in these discussions are actually a minority compared to the wide range of experiments which have sought to find violations of the Equivalence Principle without success.

See this article as well: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 21, 2019, 01:18:19 AM

That one is addressed in a different article: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Some interesting quotes there. The gravimeter is really a seismometer and it is detecting signals in the low frequency band as 'gravity waves' and 'infra-gravity waves' under a theory that gravity would cause variations as picked up by a seismometer. The gravity anomalies seem to be correlated with the seismic zones of the world.
Precision absolute gravimeters are not seismometers!

Absolute gravimeters work by directly measuring the acceleration of a mass during free fall in a vacuum.

Quote
Absolute gravimeters (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter)
Gravimeters for measuring the earth's gravity as precisely as possible, are getting smaller and more portable. A common type measures the acceleration of small masses free falling in a vacuum, when the accelerometer is firmly attached to the ground.
The mass includes a retroreflector and terminates one arm of a Michelson interferometer. By counting and timing the interference fringes, the acceleration of the mass can be measured. A more recent development is a "rise and fall" version that tosses the mass upward and measures both upward and downward motion. This allows cancellation of some measurement errors, however "rise and fall" gravimeters are not in common use. Absolute gravimeters are used in the calibration of relative gravimeters, surveying for gravity anomalies (voids), and for establishing the vertical control network

Typical absolute gravimeter:
Quote
Scintrex A10 Portable Absolute Gravimeter (https://scintrexltd.com/product/a10-outdoor-absolute-gravimeter/)
(https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A10-product.jpg)       
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

The A10 is an absolute gravimeter optimized for fast data acquisition and portability in outdoor applications. The instrument allows operation in harsh field conditions on open outdoor sites in the sun, snow, and wind.

Automated leveling, Battery operated, Temperature controlled sensor, Ideal roadside operation from a vehicle.

Performance Specifications
Accuracy:
  10µGal (Absolute)
Precision:
  10µGal in 10 minutes at a quiet site
Operating temperature
  -18˚C to +38˚C continuous operation

From: A10 portable absolute gravity meter (https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MgL_A10-Brochure.pdf)
This includes a description of the method of operation.
The is essentially a free-fall measurement in a vacuum chamber using a laser interferometer for precise velocity measurement.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:22:02 AM
Precision absolute gravimeters are not seismometers!

Write us an article or make a YouTube video to contradict the sources which say and suggest that Gravimeters are Seismometers, including Absolute Gravimeters. Quote physcists. Show us directly. Make your case, rather than stating opinion.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Danang on July 21, 2019, 01:29:09 AM


Are you going to defend your viewpoint or just casually mention some random book?

Even this time Rabinoz didn't respond my post as usually he did. I guess he was nervous when I mentioned "the breathing earth" ;D

Try again 8)
[/quote]

The Breathing Earth...so FEers think the CO2 cycle creates gravity?  How 'bout you defend your viewpoint?
[/quote]

For the perspective of PHEW FE: The earth is a super huge spacecraft with the current unimaginable speed. (Speed of light is only a dust, compared to UA speed).
The earth breathes due to machinary like mechanism. There are various up and down of altitude in various places and times.

Universal Acceleration is the only strongest candidate to replace the dying gravity theory and be the core of physics.

The current dying physics will have a reliable helper: Universal Acceleration.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Danang on July 21, 2019, 01:32:27 AM
The Breathing Earth will confirm Universal Acceleration, as well as other subjects, e.g. tides, sea waves etc.

Are you going to defend your viewpoint or just casually mention some random book?
Even this time Rabinoz didn't respond my post as usually he did.
Why should I respond to all your posts?

Hot topics like UA and Breathing Earth are always your targets to response. And you have done it previously several months ago.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun in an experiment or from the earth in a very long drop test (skyscraper size tests have been conducted) then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They take that analogy quite literally.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 01:39:22 AM
Air pressure, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, all affect a scale. Scales vary wildly if left uncalibrated. It seems that precision scale manufacturers can't even define exactly how, and just recommend frequent calibration.

Any singular analysis would be insufficient, as there are many properties of the air. Variances in scales can and do occur far greater than the fraction of a degree seen in the experiment. The experiment needs to be done in a vaccum chamber.
It does not. This is your usual method of trying to confuse.

Still waiting for your proposals to determine the size and shape of the earth without which you have no credibility.

I love it when you guys try to change topics in a thread. It says "I have nothing to contribute and can't really contradict what is being discussed, but look at this!"

I love it when you talk nonsense Tom.
The mining and oil industries all over the globe as a matter of course map areas of interest using a variety of techniques. One of those are field studies that look for gravitational anomalies.
Here is a simple paper on it you may understand.

https://www.hartenergy.com/exclusives/gravity-and-magnetic-geophysical-methods-oil-exploration-176138

What is interesting is that it was such a major study that brought about the discovery of the Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/drilling-projects/

Im really not sure what point you’re trying to prove Tom, but it’s an undeniable fact that gravity, what ever that that happens to be, is variable across the globe depending on both rock density elevation and latitude.



Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:41:33 AM
That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 01:43:18 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun in an experiment or from the earth in a very long drop test (skyscraper size tests have been conducted) then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

Tom, why do you imagine the earth has a variable elliptical orbit? It is these variations in gravity that have resulted in the numerous  ice ages the earth has experienced over the ages.

The evidence for this is in the rocks under our very feet.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 01:50:53 AM
That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

No it’s not Tom.

You supply a random link with no supporting evidence that you imagine overturns proven scientific theory combined with everyday practical experience  that the global oil and mining industries have been using for years and years.

Have you let them know all their discoveries using this science have all been wrong?

Sorry but this is an example of blind ignorance trying to overturn proven science.

You continually carp on about unsubstantiated claims, while you are the master at doing this providing meaningless links from your wiki as though they carry any weight.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 01:54:12 AM
That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Just a small point Tom, but why does your Wiki not use flat earth maps for presenting data?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 01:58:21 AM
That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Here is some real science Tom.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301932
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 02:00:59 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 02:01:46 AM
That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Here is some real science Tom.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301932

I don't see how it contradicts the statements that Gravimeters are Seismometers.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 21, 2019, 02:17:01 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 02:30:30 AM
That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Here is some real science Tom.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301932

I don't see how it contradicts the statements that Gravimeters are Seismometers.

You have obviously not read your wiki properly nor understood the working of a gravimeter. Incidentally why would a flat earth Wiki not use flat earth maps when presenting its data? I’m assuming you have some.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 02:32:36 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space due to 'gravity'. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 02:38:23 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.

Let’s introduce a few brass tacks.

Are you trying to say all the geologists, mining engineers oil workers and other professionals engaged in mineral extraction are all deluded, along with the designers and manufacturers of gravity meters?

I think the clue is in the name.

Also why does the flatearth wiki not exclusively use flatearth maps?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 02:40:29 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

So you say Tom, that’s not what the mining industry says.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 21, 2019, 02:47:01 AM
Precision absolute gravimeters are not seismometers!

Write us an article or make a YouTube video to contradict the sources which say and suggest that Gravimeters are Seismometers, including Absolute Gravimeters. Quote physcists. Show us directly. Make your case, rather than stating opinion.
I did not state my opinion!
I quoted a manufacturer of absolute gravimeters who might know far more than you about how their own instruments work.

If you took any notice of what I posted you might have learned that it operates by timing the rise and fall of a mass in a vacuum chamber.
The position of the mass is measured by an optical interferometer.

You might read:
Quote
A new generation of absolute gravimeters. Metrologia, 32, 159-180 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230957493_A_new_generation_of_absolute_gravimeters_Metrologia_32_159-180)
Abstract
We describe the design improvements incorporated in a new generation of absolute gravimeters, the FG5. A vertically oriented (in-line) interferometer design is used to remove the influence of floor vibration and tilt on the optical path length. The interferometer uses an iodine-stabilized laser as a primary length standard, with circuitry for automatic peak detection and locking. The seismic isolation system is an active long-period seismometer (Super Spring). The new design has improved passive isolation and thermal drift characteristics over previous systems. Programming flexibility and control of the test mass trajectory have been improved. The computer system has also improved real-time analysis and system capability. The FG5 instrument has a higher level of robustness, reliability and ease of use. These design advances have led to an instrumental uncertainty estimate of 1,1 × 10-8 m s-2 (1,0 μGal). Instrument agreement among nine similar devices is 1,8 μGal and observations under optimal conditions exhibit standard deviations of 5 μGal to 8 μGal.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fu93ayhl40ht05/Figure%201.%20Schematic%20Diagram%20of%20Key%20Components%20of%20FG5%20Absolute%20Gravimeter.png?dl=1)

<< Read the rest of the document for more detail. >>
I repeat that absolute gravimeters are not seismometers. The measure the local value of the g.

Note that the unit Gal referred to is defined as an acceleration of 1 cm/s2 or 0.01 m/s2.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 21, 2019, 02:52:17 AM
They don't calibrate the scales. See the article posted. https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
Repeatedly spamming the same thing won't help you, nor will ignoring the refutation of it.

You have been unable to provide an alternative for the very real variation of gravity.

Some interesting quotes there. The gravimeter is really a seismometer
Not realy, just ficticious.

Absolute gravimeters measure the free fall acceleration of an object.
Sizemology has nothing to do with it.

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle
No, it wouldn't. Not in the slightest.
The equivalence principle does not apply to a massive system. It applies locally, technically only to an infinitesimally small regions.

If you want to assert that it is a violation you will need a justification.
But it seems you are just grasping at whatever straws you can.

Many experiments have been tried to detect such violations
No, they aren't violations, they are variations, which are detected.

Write us an article or make a YouTube video to contradict the sources
So far the only sources which you have provided is your FE website. It is nothing more than a baseless assertion.

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun in an experiment or from the earth in a very long drop test (skyscraper size tests have been conducted) then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They take that analogy quite literally.
No it wouldn't.
Firstly, it wouldn't be felt. It would merely be a difference in the value of g.
This would be like being in a rocket accelerating at a slightly different rate.
So no, no violation of the equivalence principle there.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 21, 2019, 03:01:43 AM
Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space due to 'gravity'. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.
But absolute gravimeters do not measure seismic effects so there would seem to be no "Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.".
The one described in the paper I quoted goes to great lengths to cancel seismic effects.

The Equivalence Principle stares simply that:
"There is no way of distinguishing between the effects on an observer of a uniform gravitational field and of constant acceleration".
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 03:02:40 AM
Let’s stop for a moment and consider reality.

The mineral extraction industry that exists is a multi billion dollar industry that operates in all parts of the earth extracting all the resources required to build the world in which we live.

Before something is cut, dug or drilled, a survey is carried out to determine the geology of the area. Part of that survey would be to use some gravimetric device that gives a picture of the nature of the underlying strata. The picture gained is based on variations in local gravity and not on anything to do with seismic activity.

One can stand on ground that has an underlying layer of clay at altitude A and obtain a reading such as around London. One can then drive to Cornwall take another reading, again at altitude A, which would be much higher. Why? Because the underlying rock is granite rather than clay, much denser that clay hence the higher the local gravity.

The density of clay being 1.33 g/cu3 while granite is 2.75 g/cu3
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 06:48:23 AM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

When you say they, you obviously mean all your other flat earth pals. The worldwide mining and petroleum industries know exactly what a gravimeter measures as do I.
What I think you need to do is brush up on the science, this might help.

https://earth.esa.int/documents/973910/1006684/RR3.pdf
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 08:18:54 AM
That is merely a casual version of the weight experiments done 300 years ago. They didn't use vaccumes then and no one is using vaccumes in the present version. The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around. Many experiments have been tried to detect such violations, from high hights or even from gravity sources such as the Sun, to which they speculate that selective gravity is occuring to maintain the EP through 'preferred curves' in spacetime.

The Weight Variations by Latitude is an ancient hold-over, from before the modern EP experiments. The few types of experiments cited in favor of 'gravity' in these discussions are actually a minority compared to the wide range of experiments which have sought to find violations of the Equivalence Principle without success.

See this article as well: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Tom,
The explanation of upwards acceleration for gravity is merely a sanitized illustration in an Earth reference frame.  This force decreases with distance by the inverse square.  Gravity is weaker at higher altitudes.

Separately, air pressure is irrelevant in the weight experiment because, as you can see, the weight of the air is zeroed out on the scale.  You can see 0.00 at all locations for the experiment before he puts the weight down, showing that he already accounted for the air. 

If I told you I fly satellites around the globe would you give up your FE belief?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 02:54:32 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.

If I had, would you believe me?

Or would you only believe the Earth to be a globe if you could see these differences in Earth's gravity for your self?

It doesn't really matter if I believe it. But if you're going to base the entirety of your argument that the earth isn't flat on one set of data, wouldn't it be prudent to assure yourself of the validity of the data yourself? Rather than relying on something other people tell you is so? Which seems to be a big problem here.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 21, 2019, 03:28:14 PM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space due to 'gravity'. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.

I wasn't asking about subseismic interpretation or whatever. I was asking about your statement regarding gravity variations and how such a thing would violate the EP and by extension GR. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 03:29:20 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.

If I had, would you believe me?

Or would you only believe the Earth to be a globe if you could see these differences in Earth's gravity for your self?

It doesn't really matter if I believe it. But if you're going to base the entirety of your argument that the earth isn't flat on one set of data, wouldn't it be prudent to assure yourself of the validity of the data yourself? Rather than relying on something other people tell you is so? Which seems to be a big problem here.

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.

If I had, would you believe me?

Or would you only believe the Earth to be a globe if you could see these differences in Earth's gravity for your self?

It doesn't really matter if I believe it. But if you're going to base the entirety of your argument that the earth isn't flat on one set of data, wouldn't it be prudent to assure yourself of the validity of the data yourself? Rather than relying on something other people tell you is so? Which seems to be a big problem here.

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM
Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser


Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?
[/quote]

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth.  So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence? No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself.  You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive? 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 10:48:22 PM
(Fixed your erroneous quote attributions)
Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth. 


But that's not what you said. You gave one single piece of evidence and claimed "Earth cannot be flat because of this."

Your claim, as presented in your initial post, consists of that and that alone; essentially

"Acceleration different at Point A and Point B is the only thing necessary to prove earth is not flat."

If you're going to go out on a limb with such a poor argument, you should at least know the data for Point A and Point B is accurate.

So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence?

Sorry? My what?

No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

That's presumptuous.


I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.


I like the credential-swapping portion of this game.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself. 

Presumptuous. My concern is not with your conclusion, but with your poor attempt at proving it.

You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

You're actually handicapped by assuming someone that questions you must be a flat-earther.

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive?

I like how you pretend to be concerned about my future employment opportunities. See previous link to find out about my employment experience, as well as my thoughts on knee-jerk assumptions.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 08:16:06 AM
(Fixed your erroneous quote attributions)
Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth. 


But that's not what you said. You gave one single piece of evidence and claimed "Earth cannot be flat because of this."

Your claim, as presented in your initial post, consists of that and that alone; essentially

"Acceleration different at Point A and Point B is the only thing necessary to prove earth is not flat."

If you're going to go out on a limb with such a poor argument, you should at least know the data for Point A and Point B is accurate.

So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence?

Sorry? My what?

No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

That's presumptuous.


I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.


I like the credential-swapping portion of this game.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself. 

Presumptuous. My concern is not with your conclusion, but with your poor attempt at proving it.

You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

You're actually handicapped by assuming someone that questions you must be a flat-earther.

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive?

I like how you pretend to be concerned about my future employment opportunities. See previous link to find out about my employment experience, as well as my thoughts on knee-jerk assumptions.

I'm not lying about my credentials. I spent 14 years as an operational weather forecaster, now I operate satellites.

Like I said, I have several points about a round Earth. In this case the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.

If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?



Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 22, 2019, 08:34:35 AM
...the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.
You've created a false dichotomy that has been discussed quite a bit in the past. There are proposed ways that allow for the measured variations on gravity without resulting in the Earth breaking apart.

Quote
If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?
You made a bad argument. Why shouldn't you be questioned?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 08:51:31 AM
...the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.
You've created a false dichotomy that has been discussed quite a bit in the past. There are proposed ways that allow for the measured variations on gravity without resulting in the Earth breaking apart.

Quote
If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?
You made a bad argument. Why shouldn't you be questioned?

If it's been discussed before, say it here.  Because I can promise you the world being round has been discussed for centuries.  Unless you're not up to the task.  And don't just paste links.  Actually write your understanding here.

It's a great argument.  The FE model supposed an upward accelerating disk.  If different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, they won't stay together.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on July 22, 2019, 12:00:37 PM
The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.
No.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

Gravimeters can be used in planes.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 22, 2019, 12:12:00 PM
(Fixed your erroneous quote attributions)
Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth. 


But that's not what you said. You gave one single piece of evidence and claimed "Earth cannot be flat because of this."

Your claim, as presented in your initial post, consists of that and that alone; essentially

"Acceleration different at Point A and Point B is the only thing necessary to prove earth is not flat."

If you're going to go out on a limb with such a poor argument, you should at least know the data for Point A and Point B is accurate.

So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence?

Sorry? My what?

No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

That's presumptuous.


I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.


I like the credential-swapping portion of this game.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself. 

Presumptuous. My concern is not with your conclusion, but with your poor attempt at proving it.

You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

You're actually handicapped by assuming someone that questions you must be a flat-earther.

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive?

I like how you pretend to be concerned about my future employment opportunities. See previous link to find out about my employment experience, as well as my thoughts on knee-jerk assumptions.

I'm not lying about my credentials. I spent 14 years as an operational weather forecaster, now I operate satellites.

I neither said nor implied that you lied about your credentials.

Like I said, I have several points about a round Earth.

You didn't in this topic. You had one point which you presented as a proof. I commented on what you wrote.

In this case the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.

And I questioned that if this was your only argument, whether you had assured yourself of the data that leads to your conclusion.

If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?

Because these forums contain discussions on subjects other than the shape of the earth. That may be your only interest, but it is not mine. You presented a flawed argument. I have an interest in how people present, argue, and defend their positions. I have an interest in the assumptions they make. Like the assumption that I am wasting my time.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on July 22, 2019, 12:30:41 PM
Fletch meet curiossssererre.
Haha
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 22, 2019, 12:42:36 PM
It's a great argument.  The FE model supposed an upward accelerating disk.  If different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, they won't stay together.

It's a terrible argument. Your arrogance is showing. That's why you got called out.

Imagine for a minute an elevator in a vacuum, accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s/s. Inside this elevator there are two different blocks with a 1kg mass each. One is wooden, the other steel, and each has a separate scale under it to measure its weight.

There's an electromagnet at the top. It's been off so far. Now it's turned on. The scale under the 1kg block of steel suddenly reads differently. Does the elevator break apart? Of course not.

A scale measures mass * acceleration. We have eliminated mass as a variable by using blocks with equal mass.

Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 04:51:20 PM
It's a great argument.  The FE model supposed an upward accelerating disk.  If different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, they won't stay together.

It's a terrible argument. Your arrogance is showing. That's why you got called out.

Imagine for a minute an elevator in a vacuum, accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s/s. Inside this elevator there are two different blocks with a 1kg mass each. One is wooden, the other steel, and each has a separate scale under it to measure its weight.

There's an electromagnet at the top. It's been off so far. Now it's turned on. The scale under the 1kg block of steel suddenly reads differently. Does the elevator break apart? Of course not.

A scale measures mass * acceleration. We have eliminated mass as a variable by using blocks with equal mass.

Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.

Also, I'm arrogant because I'm right.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 22, 2019, 04:58:34 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 05:03:56 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 05:21:29 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it would in the inertial frame.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 22, 2019, 05:22:17 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
It's not a flaw. First of all, despite what appears to be your assertion otherwise, the measured weight of the steel block remains less than the wooden one for the entire time the electromagnet is on, which can be arbitrary, and the elevator still doesn't break apart. Second, what I wrote above is a demonstration that you can get different measurements for the weight of objects, and accordingly (since they are the same mass), different measurements of acceleration at different locations on the surface of a solid object that is accelerating upwards constantly, without that object being torn apart. Which is precisely what you argued cannot be possible, otherwise the Earth would have broken into pieces. Turns out, it's not necessarily true, so you didn't prove anything. That's why you're not getting high-fives from anyone, RE or FE. It was a bad argument. As far as flaw #2, the main flaw here is you misapplying what I said to something else entirely and thinking it would be relevant.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 05:28:05 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
It's not a flaw. First of all, despite what appears to be your assertion otherwise, the measured weight of the steel block remains less than the wooden one for the entire time the electromagnet is on, which can be arbitrary, and the elevator still doesn't break apart. Second, what I wrote above is a demonstration that you can get different measurements for the weight of objects, and accordingly (since they are the same mass), different measurements of acceleration at different locations on the surface of a solid object that is accelerating upwards constantly, without that object being torn apart. Which is precisely what you argued cannot be possible, otherwise the Earth would have broken into pieces. Turns out, it's not necessarily true, so you didn't prove anything. That's why you're not getting high-fives from anyone, RE or FE. It was a bad argument. As far as flaw #2, the main flaw here is you misapplying what I said to something else entirely and thinking it would be relevant.

The electromaget would either lift the steel block or not change it's measured weight, depending on the distance from the object.

Besides, your scenario is artificially applying a force with a man-made device.  Last I checked, there's not a giant electromagnetic ring hovering just above the equator.


Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 22, 2019, 05:35:14 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
It's not a flaw. First of all, despite what appears to be your assertion otherwise, the measured weight of the steel block remains less than the wooden one for the entire time the electromagnet is on, which can be arbitrary, and the elevator still doesn't break apart. Second, what I wrote above is a demonstration that you can get different measurements for the weight of objects, and accordingly (since they are the same mass), different measurements of acceleration at different locations on the surface of a solid object that is accelerating upwards constantly, without that object being torn apart. Which is precisely what you argued cannot be possible, otherwise the Earth would have broken into pieces. Turns out, it's not necessarily true, so you didn't prove anything. That's why you're not getting high-fives from anyone, RE or FE. It was a bad argument. As far as flaw #2, the main flaw here is you misapplying what I said to something else entirely and thinking it would be relevant.

The electromaget would either lift the steel block or not change it's measured weight, depending on the distance from the object.

Besides, your scenario is artificially applying a force with a man-made device.  Last I checked, there's not a giant electromagnetic ring hovering just above the equator.
The electromagnet doesn't have to lift the steel block. It can apply enough magnetic force to reduce the measured weight, and continue doing so for as long as it's on. If you don't believe that, go play with magnets. You'll see there is a lot of room in between "has no effect on" and "lifts off the ground."

My scenario demonstrates your assertion is false. Doesn't matter if it's artificial or not. It's possible that there could be measured differences in gravity across the surface of the Earth without it breaking into pieces.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 05:37:45 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
It's not a flaw. First of all, despite what appears to be your assertion otherwise, the measured weight of the steel block remains less than the wooden one for the entire time the electromagnet is on, which can be arbitrary, and the elevator still doesn't break apart. Second, what I wrote above is a demonstration that you can get different measurements for the weight of objects, and accordingly (since they are the same mass), different measurements of acceleration at different locations on the surface of a solid object that is accelerating upwards constantly, without that object being torn apart. Which is precisely what you argued cannot be possible, otherwise the Earth would have broken into pieces. Turns out, it's not necessarily true, so you didn't prove anything. That's why you're not getting high-fives from anyone, RE or FE. It was a bad argument. As far as flaw #2, the main flaw here is you misapplying what I said to something else entirely and thinking it would be relevant.

The electromaget would either lift the steel block or not change it's measured weight, depending on the distance from the object.

Besides, your scenario is artificially applying a force with a man-made device.  Last I checked, there's not a giant electromagnetic ring hovering just above the equator.
The electromagnet doesn't have to lift the steel block. It can apply enough magnetic force to reduce the measured weight, and continue doing so for as long as it's on. If you don't believe that, go play with magnets. You'll see there is a lot of room in between "has no effect on" and "lifts off the ground."

My scenario demonstrates your assertion is false. Doesn't matter if it's artificial or not. It's possible that there could be measured differences in gravity across the surface of the Earth without it breaking into pieces.

You can artificially contaminate any experiment to get the results you want, but it's far from scientific. If you put your finger on a weight, you'll get a different measurement as well.  What's your point?

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 05:45:09 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
It's not a flaw. First of all, despite what appears to be your assertion otherwise, the measured weight of the steel block remains less than the wooden one for the entire time the electromagnet is on, which can be arbitrary, and the elevator still doesn't break apart. Second, what I wrote above is a demonstration that you can get different measurements for the weight of objects, and accordingly (since they are the same mass), different measurements of acceleration at different locations on the surface of a solid object that is accelerating upwards constantly, without that object being torn apart. Which is precisely what you argued cannot be possible, otherwise the Earth would have broken into pieces. Turns out, it's not necessarily true, so you didn't prove anything. That's why you're not getting high-fives from anyone, RE or FE. It was a bad argument. As far as flaw #2, the main flaw here is you misapplying what I said to something else entirely and thinking it would be relevant.

The electromaget would either lift the steel block or not change it's measured weight, depending on the distance from the object.

Besides, your scenario is artificially applying a force with a man-made device.  Last I checked, there's not a giant electromagnetic ring hovering just above the equator.
The electromagnet doesn't have to lift the steel block. It can apply enough magnetic force to reduce the measured weight, and continue doing so for as long as it's on. If you don't believe that, go play with magnets. You'll see there is a lot of room in between "has no effect on" and "lifts off the ground."

My scenario demonstrates your assertion is false. Doesn't matter if it's artificial or not. It's possible that there could be measured differences in gravity across the surface of the Earth without it breaking into pieces.
You can artificially contaminate any experiment to get the results you want, but it's far from scientific. If you put your finger on a weight, you'll get a different measurement as well.  What's your point?


Also, the reason differing accelerations on Earth would tear it apart is because all objects at the equator experience a different acceleration.  The crust at the equator would move upward more slowly than the higher lattitudes over time due to having a weaker upward acceleration.  This would cause the out rim of the flat Earth and the center to move ahead of the equator creating a shape like a angel food cake pan.  The Earth would eventually tear into peices.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 22, 2019, 05:46:49 PM
If you kick the wooden block the weight measurement would fluctuate as well.  But we're measuring the force of gravity not electromagetism or the strength of Bruce Lee's roundhouse.
You know, that doesn't really matter. This is what matters, as it's the reason your argument is void:
Quote
Here's the important part, as the mere possibility of a "yes" response negates your argument: Is it possible to measure mass*acceleration on objects situated on a rigid platform in a state of constant upwards acceleration, and arrive at different values for acceleration for those objects? Absolutely.

In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
It's not a flaw. First of all, despite what appears to be your assertion otherwise, the measured weight of the steel block remains less than the wooden one for the entire time the electromagnet is on, which can be arbitrary, and the elevator still doesn't break apart. Second, what I wrote above is a demonstration that you can get different measurements for the weight of objects, and accordingly (since they are the same mass), different measurements of acceleration at different locations on the surface of a solid object that is accelerating upwards constantly, without that object being torn apart. Which is precisely what you argued cannot be possible, otherwise the Earth would have broken into pieces. Turns out, it's not necessarily true, so you didn't prove anything. That's why you're not getting high-fives from anyone, RE or FE. It was a bad argument. As far as flaw #2, the main flaw here is you misapplying what I said to something else entirely and thinking it would be relevant.

The electromaget would either lift the steel block or not change it's measured weight, depending on the distance from the object.

Besides, your scenario is artificially applying a force with a man-made device.  Last I checked, there's not a giant electromagnetic ring hovering just above the equator.
The electromagnet doesn't have to lift the steel block. It can apply enough magnetic force to reduce the measured weight, and continue doing so for as long as it's on. If you don't believe that, go play with magnets. You'll see there is a lot of room in between "has no effect on" and "lifts off the ground."

My scenario demonstrates your assertion is false. Doesn't matter if it's artificial or not. It's possible that there could be measured differences in gravity across the surface of the Earth without it breaking into pieces.

You can artificially contaminate any experiment to get the results you want, but it's far from scientific. If you put your finger on a weight, you'll get a different measurement as well.  What's your point?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Weight is mass times acceleration due to gravity, or whatever force is preventing something from being in freefall. 2 1kg weights have the same mass. If they can both sit in an elevator on separate scales, and those scales measure a different weight, the "m" didn't change, meaning the "a" did. According to you, that means the elevator from the thought experiment should break into pieces, when it's pretty intuitive to understand that it would not, because there is another force at play. Which is exactly what someone who is a UA advocate would tell you is responsible for the variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth - another force in addition to the UA. This really isn't hard to understand.

Recall your OP:
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

That argument doesn't hold up.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 05:50:50 PM
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Weight is mass times acceleration due to gravity, or whatever force is preventing something from being in freefall. 2 1kg weights have the same mass. If they can both sit in an elevator on separate scales, and those scales measure a different weight, the "m" didn't change, meaning the "a" did. According to you, that means the elevator from the thought experiment should break into pieces, when it's pretty intuitive to understand that it would not, because there is another force at play. Which is exactly what someone who is a UA advocate would tell you is responsible for the variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth - another force in addition to the UA. This really isn't hard to understand.

Recall your OP:
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

That argument doesn't hold up.
[/quote]

Your example doesn't work because it's on an elevator with man-made contamination.  The Earth is not an elevator.  My argument does hold up.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 06:02:06 PM

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Weight is mass times acceleration due to gravity, or whatever force is preventing something from being in freefall. 2 1kg weights have the same mass. If they can both sit in an elevator on separate scales, and those scales measure a different weight, the "m" didn't change, meaning the "a" did. According to you, that means the elevator from the thought experiment should break into pieces, when it's pretty intuitive to understand that it would not, because there is another force at play. Which is exactly what someone who is a UA advocate would tell you is responsible for the variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth - another force in addition to the UA. This really isn't hard to understand.

Recall your OP:
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

That argument doesn't hold up.

Your example only works on an elevator with man-made contamination.  The Earth is not an elevator.  My argument does hold up.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.
[/quote]

Let’s say I work at the airport Hilton, in the Flamingo lounge, specifically. We have a wedding to attend to, I’m a server. The bride and groom don’t have a ton of money to spend so they opted for the “Chard” package. Which means at the reception, everyone gets a ‘free’ glass of house chardonnay before the cash bar kicks in. I, as a server, have to load and lorry a tray of a dozen glasses of wine at shoulder height out to deliver to the guests. Each glass is filled at slightly varying levels. Meaning each has a different weight. So, in essence, my tray has a variance in weight distributed about the plane of the tray.
As part of the “Chard” package each of the wait staff, as a kind of entertainment, a parlor trick, if you will, when they swoop out to deliver the wine glasses to each table, they lower the tray almost to the floor. Then, in one deft motion, they accelerate their arm, thrusting the tray loaded with wine glasses filled with varying amounts into the air. At the very end of their extended arm motion they slow down and arc the tray back down where they hand out each glass with a semi-bow and a smile as they move around, in this case, table 15. It’s quite the spectacle and completely unexpected at a less than grand banquet hall. Though good for tips.

Now during that space where the tray was thrust upward and it came to rest at the extension of the servers arm there was constant acceleration. Within that constant acceleration there was no collapsing, crumbling of the tray as it was moving upward - It all moved as one mass, uniformly, regardless of the individual wine glasses and their variance in terms of individual weight. Distribution is obviously key, but we’re talking about minute variances. The serving tray does not break apart.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 06:04:13 PM

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Weight is mass times acceleration due to gravity, or whatever force is preventing something from being in freefall. 2 1kg weights have the same mass. If they can both sit in an elevator on separate scales, and those scales measure a different weight, the "m" didn't change, meaning the "a" did. According to you, that means the elevator from the thought experiment should break into pieces, when it's pretty intuitive to understand that it would not, because there is another force at play. Which is exactly what someone who is a UA advocate would tell you is responsible for the variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth - another force in addition to the UA. This really isn't hard to understand.

Recall your OP:
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

That argument doesn't hold up.

Your example only works on an elevator with man-made contamination.  The Earth is not an elevator.  My argument does hold up.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.

Let’s say I work at the airport Hilton, in the Flamingo lounge, specifically. We have a wedding to attend to, I’m a server. The bride and groom don’t have a ton of money to spend so they opted for the “Chard” package. Which means at the reception, everyone gets a ‘free’ glass of house chardonnay before the cash bar kicks in. I, as a server, have to load and lorry a tray of a dozen glasses of wine at shoulder height out to deliver to the guests. Each glass is filled at slightly varying levels. Meaning each has a different weight. So, in essence, my tray has a variance in weight distributed about the plane of the tray.
As part of the “Chard” package each of the wait staff, as a kind of entertainment, a parlor trick, if you will, when they swoop out to deliver the wine glasses to each table, they lower the tray almost to the floor. Then, in one deft motion, they accelerate their arm, thrusting the tray loaded with wine glasses filled with varying amounts into the air. At the very end of their extended arm motion they slow down and arc the tray back down where they hand out each glass with a semi-bow and a smile as they move around, in this case, table 15. It’s quite the spectacle and completely unexpected at a less than grand banquet hall. Though good for tips.

Now during that space where the tray was thrust upward and it came to rest at the extension of the servers arm there was constant acceleration. Within that constant acceleration there was no collapsing, crumbling of the tray as it was moving upward - It all moved as one mass, uniformly, regardless of the individual wine glasses and their variance in terms of individual weight. Distribution is obviously key, but we’re talking about minute variances. The serving tray does not break apart.
[/quote]

This is hilarious.  Thank you, my point exactly.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 06:11:57 PM

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Weight is mass times acceleration due to gravity, or whatever force is preventing something from being in freefall. 2 1kg weights have the same mass. If they can both sit in an elevator on separate scales, and those scales measure a different weight, the "m" didn't change, meaning the "a" did. According to you, that means the elevator from the thought experiment should break into pieces, when it's pretty intuitive to understand that it would not, because there is another force at play. Which is exactly what someone who is a UA advocate would tell you is responsible for the variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth - another force in addition to the UA. This really isn't hard to understand.

Recall your OP:
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

That argument doesn't hold up.

Your example only works on an elevator with man-made contamination.  The Earth is not an elevator.  My argument does hold up.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.

Let’s say I work at the airport Hilton, in the Flamingo lounge, specifically. We have a wedding to attend to, I’m a server. The bride and groom don’t have a ton of money to spend so they opted for the “Chard” package. Which means at the reception, everyone gets a ‘free’ glass of house chardonnay before the cash bar kicks in. I, as a server, have to load and lorry a tray of a dozen glasses of wine at shoulder height out to deliver to the guests. Each glass is filled at slightly varying levels. Meaning each has a different weight. So, in essence, my tray has a variance in weight distributed about the plane of the tray.
As part of the “Chard” package each of the wait staff, as a kind of entertainment, a parlor trick, if you will, when they swoop out to deliver the wine glasses to each table, they lower the tray almost to the floor. Then, in one deft motion, they accelerate their arm, thrusting the tray loaded with wine glasses filled with varying amounts into the air. At the very end of their extended arm motion they slow down and arc the tray back down where they hand out each glass with a semi-bow and a smile as they move around, in this case, table 15. It’s quite the spectacle and completely unexpected at a less than grand banquet hall. Though good for tips.

Now during that space where the tray was thrust upward and it came to rest at the extension of the servers arm there was constant acceleration. Within that constant acceleration there was no collapsing, crumbling of the tray as it was moving upward - It all moved as one mass, uniformly, regardless of the individual wine glasses and their variance in terms of individual weight. Distribution is obviously key, but we’re talking about minute variances. The serving tray does not break apart.

This is hilarious.  Thank you, my point exactly.
[/quote]

Actually, it's Boydster's argument, or more to the point, my take on it.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 06:18:04 PM

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Weight is mass times acceleration due to gravity, or whatever force is preventing something from being in freefall. 2 1kg weights have the same mass. If they can both sit in an elevator on separate scales, and those scales measure a different weight, the "m" didn't change, meaning the "a" did. According to you, that means the elevator from the thought experiment should break into pieces, when it's pretty intuitive to understand that it would not, because there is another force at play. Which is exactly what someone who is a UA advocate would tell you is responsible for the variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth - another force in addition to the UA. This really isn't hard to understand.

Recall your OP:
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

That argument doesn't hold up.

Your example only works on an elevator with man-made contamination.  The Earth is not an elevator.  My argument does hold up.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.

Let’s say I work at the airport Hilton, in the Flamingo lounge, specifically. We have a wedding to attend to, I’m a server. The bride and groom don’t have a ton of money to spend so they opted for the “Chard” package. Which means at the reception, everyone gets a ‘free’ glass of house chardonnay before the cash bar kicks in. I, as a server, have to load and lorry a tray of a dozen glasses of wine at shoulder height out to deliver to the guests. Each glass is filled at slightly varying levels. Meaning each has a different weight. So, in essence, my tray has a variance in weight distributed about the plane of the tray.
As part of the “Chard” package each of the wait staff, as a kind of entertainment, a parlor trick, if you will, when they swoop out to deliver the wine glasses to each table, they lower the tray almost to the floor. Then, in one deft motion, they accelerate their arm, thrusting the tray loaded with wine glasses filled with varying amounts into the air. At the very end of their extended arm motion they slow down and arc the tray back down where they hand out each glass with a semi-bow and a smile as they move around, in this case, table 15. It’s quite the spectacle and completely unexpected at a less than grand banquet hall. Though good for tips.

Now during that space where the tray was thrust upward and it came to rest at the extension of the servers arm there was constant acceleration. Within that constant acceleration there was no collapsing, crumbling of the tray as it was moving upward - It all moved as one mass, uniformly, regardless of the individual wine glasses and their variance in terms of individual weight. Distribution is obviously key, but we’re talking about minute variances. The serving tray does not break apart.

This is hilarious.  Thank you, my point exactly.

Actually, it's Boydster's argument, or more to the point, my take on it.
[/quote]

I like the passive-aggresive Stash edition better.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 06:26:42 PM

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Weight is mass times acceleration due to gravity, or whatever force is preventing something from being in freefall. 2 1kg weights have the same mass. If they can both sit in an elevator on separate scales, and those scales measure a different weight, the "m" didn't change, meaning the "a" did. According to you, that means the elevator from the thought experiment should break into pieces, when it's pretty intuitive to understand that it would not, because there is another force at play. Which is exactly what someone who is a UA advocate would tell you is responsible for the variations in gravity across the surface of the Earth - another force in addition to the UA. This really isn't hard to understand.

Recall your OP:
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

That argument doesn't hold up.

Your example only works on an elevator with man-made contamination.  The Earth is not an elevator.  My argument does hold up.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.

Let’s say I work at the airport Hilton, in the Flamingo lounge, specifically. We have a wedding to attend to, I’m a server. The bride and groom don’t have a ton of money to spend so they opted for the “Chard” package. Which means at the reception, everyone gets a ‘free’ glass of house chardonnay before the cash bar kicks in. I, as a server, have to load and lorry a tray of a dozen glasses of wine at shoulder height out to deliver to the guests. Each glass is filled at slightly varying levels. Meaning each has a different weight. So, in essence, my tray has a variance in weight distributed about the plane of the tray.
As part of the “Chard” package each of the wait staff, as a kind of entertainment, a parlor trick, if you will, when they swoop out to deliver the wine glasses to each table, they lower the tray almost to the floor. Then, in one deft motion, they accelerate their arm, thrusting the tray loaded with wine glasses filled with varying amounts into the air. At the very end of their extended arm motion they slow down and arc the tray back down where they hand out each glass with a semi-bow and a smile as they move around, in this case, table 15. It’s quite the spectacle and completely unexpected at a less than grand banquet hall. Though good for tips.

Now during that space where the tray was thrust upward and it came to rest at the extension of the servers arm there was constant acceleration. Within that constant acceleration there was no collapsing, crumbling of the tray as it was moving upward - It all moved as one mass, uniformly, regardless of the individual wine glasses and their variance in terms of individual weight. Distribution is obviously key, but we’re talking about minute variances. The serving tray does not break apart.

This is hilarious.  Thank you, my point exactly.

Actually, it's Boydster's argument, or more to the point, my take on it.

I like the passive-aggresive Stash edition better.
[/quote]

We aim to please around these parts.  ;)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2019, 07:54:34 PM
That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.
No Tom.  Gravimeters and seismometers are specialized accelerometers.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 02:19:39 AM
In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.
No it doesn't.
The force of the electromagnet continues to act on it, changing the force the scale needs to provide.

If you would like a better example, consider the buoyant force (which as noted is too small to cause the variations observed).
Say you have 1 kg of osmium and 1 kg of feathers, both placed onto their own large weighing dishes.
Which scale reads the heavier weight? Which scale has the higher force?

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
No, they represent whatever you are trying to weigh.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.
There are 2 main options, one is whatever magic is causing the highly selective universal acceleration, the other is additional factors.

The simple version of the magic accelerator is that Earth doesn't completely block it and thus it still acts on objects above Earth, but to a reduced extent.
As an example with numbers, consider the MA accelerating Earth at 10.00 m s-2.
Then in one region of Earth, enough of the MA seeps through to accelerate an object (object A) at 0.20 m s-2.
In another region, enough magic seeps through to accelerate object B at 0.18 m s-2.

Both objects are held 1 m above Earth and released.

What does this mean? Well ignoring the insignificant relativistic corrections for this time period, relative to Earth object A will appear to fall at a rate of 9.80 m s-2, while object B appears to fall at 9.82 m s-2.
This means object A will appear to hit the ground after roughly 0.451753951452626 s, and object B will hit the ground after roughly 0.451293682406524 s.

We can also look at it from an inertial reference frame which was moving with Earth when it all started (so velocity starts as 0).
So Earth starts at a position of 0, with a velocity of 0. The 2 objects start with a velocity of 0, but a position of 1.
After 0.451753951452626 s Earth will have moved approximately 1.02040816326531 m. Object A will have moved 0.02040816326531 m, bringing it to 1.02040816326531 m, matching up with Earth.
After 0.451293682406524 s Earth will have moved something like 1.01832993890020 m, while object B will have moved 0.01832993890020 m, bringing it to 1.01832993890020 m and thus matching up with Earth.

So the magic seeping through Earth will result in the objects having a different rate of acceleration relative to Earth.

However, Earth still wouldn't be flat. If these variations are constant (or don't change fast enough), hydro-static pressure will deform Earth into a non-flat shape, but wont tear it apart.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 23, 2019, 09:31:39 AM
In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.
No it doesn't.
The force of the electromagnet continues to act on it, changing the force the scale needs to provide.

If you would like a better example, consider the buoyant force (which as noted is too small to cause the variations observed).
Say you have 1 kg of osmium and 1 kg of feathers, both placed onto their own large weighing dishes.
Which scale reads the heavier weight? Which scale has the higher force?

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
No, they represent whatever you are trying to weigh.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.
There are 2 main options, one is whatever magic is causing the highly selective universal acceleration, the other is additional factors.

The simple version of the magic accelerator is that Earth doesn't completely block it and thus it still acts on objects above Earth, but to a reduced extent.
As an example with numbers, consider the MA accelerating Earth at 10.00 m s-2.
Then in one region of Earth, enough of the MA seeps through to accelerate an object (object A) at 0.20 m s-2.
In another region, enough magic seeps through to accelerate object B at 0.18 m s-2.

Both objects are held 1 m above Earth and released.

What does this mean? Well ignoring the insignificant relativistic corrections for this time period, relative to Earth object A will appear to fall at a rate of 9.80 m s-2, while object B appears to fall at 9.82 m s-2.
This means object A will appear to hit the ground after roughly 0.451753951452626 s, and object B will hit the ground after roughly 0.451293682406524 s.

We can also look at it from an inertial reference frame which was moving with Earth when it all started (so velocity starts as 0).
So Earth starts at a position of 0, with a velocity of 0. The 2 objects start with a velocity of 0, but a position of 1.
After 0.451753951452626 s Earth will have moved approximately 1.02040816326531 m. Object A will have moved 0.02040816326531 m, bringing it to 1.02040816326531 m, matching up with Earth.
After 0.451293682406524 s Earth will have moved something like 1.01832993890020 m, while object B will have moved 0.01832993890020 m, bringing it to 1.01832993890020 m and thus matching up with Earth.

So the magic seeping through Earth will result in the objects having a different rate of acceleration relative to Earth.

However, Earth still wouldn't be flat. If these variations are constant (or don't change fast enough), hydro-static pressure will deform Earth into a non-flat shape, but wont tear it apart.

Okay, if you assume there is a magic bouyant force making things lighter over the equator and at higher altitudes, it's just that...magic.  I'd like to hear an explanation involving something other than magic.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 23, 2019, 10:09:12 AM
In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.
No it doesn't.
The force of the electromagnet continues to act on it, changing the force the scale needs to provide.

If you would like a better example, consider the buoyant force (which as noted is too small to cause the variations observed).
Say you have 1 kg of osmium and 1 kg of feathers, both placed onto their own large weighing dishes.
Which scale reads the heavier weight? Which scale has the higher force?

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
No, they represent whatever you are trying to weigh.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.
There are 2 main options, one is whatever magic is causing the highly selective universal acceleration, the other is additional factors.

The simple version of the magic accelerator is that Earth doesn't completely block it and thus it still acts on objects above Earth, but to a reduced extent.
As an example with numbers, consider the MA accelerating Earth at 10.00 m s-2.
Then in one region of Earth, enough of the MA seeps through to accelerate an object (object A) at 0.20 m s-2.
In another region, enough magic seeps through to accelerate object B at 0.18 m s-2.

Both objects are held 1 m above Earth and released.

What does this mean? Well ignoring the insignificant relativistic corrections for this time period, relative to Earth object A will appear to fall at a rate of 9.80 m s-2, while object B appears to fall at 9.82 m s-2.
This means object A will appear to hit the ground after roughly 0.451753951452626 s, and object B will hit the ground after roughly 0.451293682406524 s.

We can also look at it from an inertial reference frame which was moving with Earth when it all started (so velocity starts as 0).
So Earth starts at a position of 0, with a velocity of 0. The 2 objects start with a velocity of 0, but a position of 1.
After 0.451753951452626 s Earth will have moved approximately 1.02040816326531 m. Object A will have moved 0.02040816326531 m, bringing it to 1.02040816326531 m, matching up with Earth.
After 0.451293682406524 s Earth will have moved something like 1.01832993890020 m, while object B will have moved 0.01832993890020 m, bringing it to 1.01832993890020 m and thus matching up with Earth.

So the magic seeping through Earth will result in the objects having a different rate of acceleration relative to Earth.

However, Earth still wouldn't be flat. If these variations are constant (or don't change fast enough), hydro-static pressure will deform Earth into a non-flat shape, but wont tear it apart.

Okay, if you assume there is a magic bouyant force making things lighter over the equator and at higher altitudes, it's just that...magic.  I'd like to hear an explanation involving something other than magic.
Replace "magic" with "as-yet undermined mechanism" and it's not only no longer being insulting and condescending, but it's also admitting that it's entirely possible to not know everything.

If all you are here to do is be an asshole, you'll find the lower boards more forgiving. If you want to actually have a conversation, I would encourage you to reflect on the fact that you are the one who started off with the very poorly constructed argument and UA has yet to be refuted by literally anything you have had to say.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 23, 2019, 12:12:28 PM
In your scenario, the acceleration of the steel block changes and then returns to it's previous value of acceleration once the block is lifted by the electromagnet.  There's flaw #1.
No it doesn't.
The force of the electromagnet continues to act on it, changing the force the scale needs to provide.

If you would like a better example, consider the buoyant force (which as noted is too small to cause the variations observed).
Say you have 1 kg of osmium and 1 kg of feathers, both placed onto their own large weighing dishes.
Which scale reads the heavier weight? Which scale has the higher force?

Then, what do the wooden block and steel block represent?  Mountains on Earth, cities, continents?  If those suddenly moved, there would be great devastation.  Flaw #2.
No, they represent whatever you are trying to weigh.

So, explain how this would work on a flat earth, rather than your man-altered electromangetic elevator.
There are 2 main options, one is whatever magic is causing the highly selective universal acceleration, the other is additional factors.

The simple version of the magic accelerator is that Earth doesn't completely block it and thus it still acts on objects above Earth, but to a reduced extent.
As an example with numbers, consider the MA accelerating Earth at 10.00 m s-2.
Then in one region of Earth, enough of the MA seeps through to accelerate an object (object A) at 0.20 m s-2.
In another region, enough magic seeps through to accelerate object B at 0.18 m s-2.

Both objects are held 1 m above Earth and released.

What does this mean? Well ignoring the insignificant relativistic corrections for this time period, relative to Earth object A will appear to fall at a rate of 9.80 m s-2, while object B appears to fall at 9.82 m s-2.
This means object A will appear to hit the ground after roughly 0.451753951452626 s, and object B will hit the ground after roughly 0.451293682406524 s.

We can also look at it from an inertial reference frame which was moving with Earth when it all started (so velocity starts as 0).
So Earth starts at a position of 0, with a velocity of 0. The 2 objects start with a velocity of 0, but a position of 1.
After 0.451753951452626 s Earth will have moved approximately 1.02040816326531 m. Object A will have moved 0.02040816326531 m, bringing it to 1.02040816326531 m, matching up with Earth.
After 0.451293682406524 s Earth will have moved something like 1.01832993890020 m, while object B will have moved 0.01832993890020 m, bringing it to 1.01832993890020 m and thus matching up with Earth.

So the magic seeping through Earth will result in the objects having a different rate of acceleration relative to Earth.

However, Earth still wouldn't be flat. If these variations are constant (or don't change fast enough), hydro-static pressure will deform Earth into a non-flat shape, but wont tear it apart.

Okay, if you assume there is a magic bouyant force making things lighter over the equator and at higher altitudes, it's just that...magic.  I'd like to hear an explanation involving something other than magic.
Replace "magic" with "as-yet undermined mechanism" and it's not only no longer being insulting and condescending, but it's also admitting that it's entirely possible to not know everything.

If all you are here to do is be an asshole, you'll find the lower boards more forgiving. If you want to actually have a conversation, I would encourage you to reflect on the fact that you are the one who started off with the very poorly constructed argument and UA has yet to be refuted by literally anything you have had to say.

You're hilarious.  I point out that there's nothing observed or measured that supports your theory of a force that magically lifts objects, yet you take it as a personal attack.  You have no explanation of this missing magical force.  Your force also applies only to metal objects.  The gnome in the FE thoery section was not metal.  People lifting weights to alter the measurement is not a FE, it's a contaminated experiment.  You and the Flat Earth Society have shown a failure to account for this.  You have hurled much more insulting attacks, along with your FE counterparts.  It shows you've lost your cool.  You've lost the argument.  Just abandon your 9th century England mentality and join the 21st century.

May it be known, I have not violated any forum rules, and if Boydster removes me, it's proof that I win, because he can't take it.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 23, 2019, 01:49:42 PM
It's not on me to explain any missing force. Again, refer back to your OP. You did not prove UA invalid like you said you did. And then you got upset because another RE was trying to explain to you that your argument fell flat, instead of supporting you. I'm trying to help you see why you aren't getting the atta-boy that you apparently wanted, and you just want to argue instead of taking a moment to understand where your logic broke down.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 23, 2019, 01:52:04 PM
I should add here, I'm not even an advocate for UA. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend you successfully refuted it. You haven't.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 23, 2019, 01:52:14 PM
Why do an ill conceived thought experiment when you could carry out a series of the real things? Finding out the truth if you really wanted to is not that difficult. If flat earthers really cared about the truth about the variability of gravity, for example, they could simply crowd fund the purchase of a gravimetric device and carry out some of their own experiments. While they were at it they could also solve the satellite question by purchasing a telescope and loading a satellite tracking app and check it out. To really nail the truth they could have one member in the northern hemisphere and another in the southern check out the sky at the full moon, each take a date stamped image of the moon and post them.
Doing these three fairly simple experiments might answer a few questions rather than indulging in a lot of pointless discussions.
I get the feeling there might be a bit reluctance as knowing the truth might be a bit difficult for some to swallow.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 23, 2019, 02:00:18 PM
It's not on me to explain any missing force. Again, refer back to your OP. You did not prove UA invalid like you said you did. And then you got upset because another RE was trying to explain to you that your argument fell flat, instead of supporting you. I'm trying to help you see why you aren't getting the atta-boy that you apparently wanted, and you just want to argue instead of taking a moment to understand where your logic broke down.

Of course you have to support your missing force.  It's up to me to support round Earth theory, which explains perfectly how gravity is weaker at the equator due to centrifugal force and weaker with higher altitudes according to the inverse square law.  It's been observed countless times.  The Flat Earth model does not account for these tendencies.  If you have to invent a unseen force to make it work, then the model fails. 

I'm not here to get praise. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 23, 2019, 02:08:09 PM
.....let’s be clear there is no published scientific data for UA. All that’s referred to by some FE proponents is a link to their own wiki which hardly constitutes evidence. The whole point of UA for some flat earthers was to find a gravity alternative. Why? because they don’t like it as it messes with their world view and their desire to believe in a flat earth.
On the other hand there are mountains of data that show gravity is variable over the surface of the globe, it’s pretty pointless to dispute it when it’s so easy to verify......same for satellites and a bunch of other stuff.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 02:27:48 PM
Okay, if you assume there is a magic bouyant force making things lighter over the equator and at higher altitudes, it's just that...magic.  I'd like to hear an explanation involving something other than magic.
Well if we are discussing the highly selective universal accelerator then we are already dealing with magic.

Boydster and others would prefer to call it some unknown cause, but I will keep calling it magic.

Saying they have no explanation for this is rather pointless as they have no explanation for UA in the first place. So if you want to go down that path you should start with asking what is causing Earth to accelerate upwards in the first place.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 23, 2019, 02:29:50 PM
So, to bring this around, Boydster does not believe the Earth is continuously accelerating upwards.  The FE society wiki seems to think otherwise.

The FE society shows a diagram of the gnome experiment where higher lattitudes measured higher weights, consistent with centrifugal force of a rotating globe.

The youtube weight experiment I posted earlier shows the weight of air already factored into the scale, so we only see the weight of the cyclinder being measured.

Then, the Voltaire experiment is referenced, showing how they figured out the Earth is fatter at the equator, consistent with a rotating globe Earth. 

Looks like the FE wiki supports a round Earth.  Good job.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 23, 2019, 02:31:36 PM
Okay, if you assume there is a magic bouyant force making things lighter over the equator and at higher altitudes, it's just that...magic.  I'd like to hear an explanation involving something other than magic.
Well if we are discussing the highly selective universal accelerator then we are already dealing with magic.

Boydster and others would prefer to call it some unknown cause, but I will keep calling it magic.

Saying they have no explanation for this is rather pointless as they have no explanation for UA in the first place. So if you want to go down that path you should start with asking what is causing Earth to accelerate upwards in the first place.

Yeah, I would like to hear that too.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on July 23, 2019, 02:32:49 PM
Gravity is mass atracts masss.
But why?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on July 23, 2019, 02:33:45 PM
The why matters less than it IS an observed phenomenom
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 23, 2019, 02:36:19 PM
It's not on me to explain any missing force. Again, refer back to your OP. You did not prove UA invalid like you said you did. And then you got upset because another RE was trying to explain to you that your argument fell flat, instead of supporting you. I'm trying to help you see why you aren't getting the atta-boy that you apparently wanted, and you just want to argue instead of taking a moment to understand where your logic broke down.
Of course you have to support your missing force. 
No, I don't. I didn't set out to disprove UA in this thread. You did. That's where the responsibility to demonstrate anything begins and ends. Let us know if you ever intend on making good in that, or if you think maybe it's time to walk that back.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:10:34 PM
So, to bring this around, Boydster does not believe the Earth is continuously accelerating upwards.  The FE society wiki seems to think otherwise.
You are confusing 2 different "societies".

If it starts with TFES it isn't this one. It is Tom's one, which I have heard is far less open to people criticising FE and is more of an echo chamber.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 23, 2019, 04:15:14 PM
So, to bring this around, Boydster does not believe the Earth is continuously accelerating upwards.  The FE society wiki seems to think otherwise.
You are confusing 2 different "societies".

If it starts with TFES it isn't this one. It is Tom's one, which I have heard is far less open to people criticising FE and is more of an echo chamber.

Oh. Oh well. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 23, 2019, 04:25:28 PM
Gravity is mass atracts masss.
But why?

Mass distorts space-time.

(http://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.95/u2y.b57.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warping-spacetime-ligo.jpg)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on July 23, 2019, 08:04:52 PM
Gravity is mass atracts masss.
But why?

Mass distorts space-time.

(http://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.95/u2y.b57.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warping-spacetime-ligo.jpg)

It is an outright lie
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 23, 2019, 08:29:15 PM
Boydster and others would prefer to call it some unknown cause, but I will keep calling it magic.
Then you are just being insulting, as there are plenty of things that are perfectly fine to admit are unknown. Just because one of those things doesn't fit in your box of acceptable unknowns doesn't mean you can be condescending to others.

Quote
Saying they have no explanation for this is rather pointless as they have no explanation for UA in the first place. So if you want to go down that path you should start with asking what is causing Earth to accelerate upwards in the first place.
Again, having an explanation for UA isn't even remotely in scope for this thread. But regardless, there is simply no reason that it couldn't be an inherent property of the universe in the UA model. And that's really not that much more hand-wavey than other phenomena in the orthodox model of the universe. It's OK to not know the fundamentals of how something works, while still understanding that it works.

And all of this, to repeat, is not an endorsement of UA from me. But being condescending towards people that want to try and support this model, or being dismissive and insulting, and also declaring some kind of victory for having "destroyed" it or whatever when you haven't done so (not you in the latter case, JackBlack, I'm speaking of the OP on that one specifically) is not something I'm especially willing to just watch. There is a section of the forum where that is tolerated. The upper boards are not that.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 23, 2019, 09:50:57 PM
Boydster and others would prefer to call it some unknown cause, but I will keep calling it magic.
Then you are just being insulting, as there are plenty of things that are perfectly fine to admit are unknown. Just because one of those things doesn't fit in your box of acceptable unknowns doesn't mean you can be condescending to others.

Quote
Saying they have no explanation for this is rather pointless as they have no explanation for UA in the first place. So if you want to go down that path you should start with asking what is causing Earth to accelerate upwards in the first place.
Again, having an explanation for UA isn't even remotely in scope for this thread. But regardless, there is simply no reason that it couldn't be an inherent property of the universe in the UA model. And that's really not that much more hand-wavey than other phenomena in the orthodox model of the universe. It's OK to not know the fundamentals of how something works, while still understanding that it works.

And all of this, to repeat, is not an endorsement of UA from me. But being condescending towards people that want to try and support this model, or being dismissive and insulting, and also declaring some kind of victory for having "destroyed" it or whatever when you haven't done so (not you in the latter case, JackBlack, I'm speaking of the OP on that one specifically) is not something I'm especially willing to just watch. There is a section of the forum where that is tolerated. The upper boards are not that.

Simply put, the round Earth model accounts for variations in gravity, while the flat Earth model does not account for these variations.  Absent some external force, which is not in an FE model put forth, acceleration must be uniform across a flat Earth.  But since there is no object floating just above the Earth with ability to cast an invisible floating attractive force over the equator and objects at higher altitudes, we know that their differeing values of gravity support a round Earth.

Side note: if you don't believe in UA, then how do you, Boydster, explain FE gravity?

The biggest problem I'm pointing out is that FEers have no explanation for a great many things that are so elementary in the world, when all they would have to do is just accept a round Earth, and it all neatly falls into place. 

When I say 'magic', it's because FE proponents have no answer to the most basic observations.  It's just written off like it doesn't matter.  The description of 'magic' is warranted when you have no observations or even mathmatical theory supporting your hypothesis.

I could be just as lazy and say the world is a double helix shape and everything you see is beamed to your brain from a cloaked ship,  all from some "unkown force."
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on July 23, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
Gravity is mass atracts masss.
But why?

Mass distorts space-time.

(http://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.95/u2y.b57.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warping-spacetime-ligo.jpg)

ya but why?
EMC^2,
why?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 03:15:49 AM
Then you are just being insulting, as there are plenty of things that are perfectly fine to admit are unknown. Just because one of those things doesn't fit in your box of acceptable unknowns doesn't mean you can be condescending to others.
No, it isn't to be insulting or be condescending. It is because it being used as an excuse to avoid the far more rational conclusion and that there is literally no justification for it at all other than a rejection of what all the evidence points to.

Calling it magic is no more insulting or condescending than calling pixies magic.

But regardless, there is simply no reason that it couldn't be an inherent property of the universe in the UA model. And that's really not that much more hand-wavey than other phenomena in the orthodox model of the universe. It's OK to not know the fundamentals of how something works, while still understanding that it works.
No, it is vastly more hand-wavy and fundamentally different to phenomena in the orthodox model.
What phenomenon in the orthodox model has a specific directionality?
What in the orthodox model works so perfectly but imperfectly at the same time?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 24, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
Yes, it is insulting, and stop pretending like that's not the intention behind the words.

Also, I'm sorry, what was the OP that I responded to again? Oh yeah, it said this:
Quote
On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

And that's not the case.

We can leave the fact that it's entirely ok to say things are as-yet unknown alone for now. Because obviously that's stupid. Since that's how things work when it comes to developing an understanding of how things work on a fundamental level.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 02:15:22 PM
Yes, it is insulting, and stop pretending like that's not the intention behind the words.
No, it is not the intention at all.
I'm not the one pretending here.

Like I said, it is no more insulting than calling pixies magic.

We can leave the fact that it's entirely ok to say things are as-yet unknown alone for now.
Yes, it is okay to say things are unknown.
What I object to is people inventing unsubstantiated nonsense and hiding behind leaving things unknown to avoid a far more rational conclusion.
Yes, the variation in acceleration around Earth is not iron-clad proof that Earth would tear itself apart, but it is quite strong evidence against a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2019, 02:20:21 PM
I would consider the fact that the weight experiments were not done in vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence that the RE don't really have much evidence on this topic. The experiment has not advanced in 300 years. This uncontrolled experiment showing fractions of a percent differences is referenced again and again mindlessly. Taking an uncalibrated scale from one location to another and finding patterns close to the equator? Really?

In the future when additional and better experiments are conducted we will find that there are no variations by latitude,  like it was discovered for time dilation. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Time_Dilation_by_Latitude)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: inquisitive on July 24, 2019, 02:27:04 PM
I would consider the fact that the weight experiments were not done in vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence that the RE don't really have much evidence on this topic. The experiment has not advanced in 300 years. This horrid uncontrolled experiment showing fractions of a percent differences is referenced again and again mindlessly.

In the future when additional and better experiments are conducted we will find that there are no variations by latitude,  like it was discovered for time dilation. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Time_Dilation_by_Latitude)
And do you know what experiments have been done in universities, have you tried to find out?  This from someone who claims the earth is flat, but cannot describe how to make a map.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 03:09:09 PM
I would consider the fact that the weight experiments were not done in vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence that the RE don't really have much evidence on this topic.
I would consider your continual appeal to vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence you have no rational objection, even though a semi-objection has already been provided for you.
The atmosphere would not have a significant enough affect to cause the variations observed.
This has been explained repeatedly, yet you ignore it and just repeat the same nonsense.
Why?

You also completely ignore the use of absolute gravimeters.

Why bother with putting scales in a vacuum and deal with the issue of numerous pressurisation-depressurisation cycles which could potentially damage the electronics rather than just using an absolute gravimeter?

If you want to demand such better experiments, go carry them out yourself.
Go and take your scale and use it at various locations in a vacuum.
But make sure you calibrate based upon weight, not mass.
It is pointless to calibrate a scale to a reference mass when you are trying to see if the weight varies around the world.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 24, 2019, 03:15:25 PM
the variation in acceleration around Earth is not iron-clad proof that Earth would tear itself apart
Precisely, which is what I have been trying to explain to the OP despite all his lengthy assertions that he has somehow succeeded in his effort disprove UA and his subsequent attempt to shift the burden of proof over to me to somehow prove UA when it isn't mine to begin with.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 24, 2019, 04:14:32 PM
Gravity is mass atracts masss.
But why?

Mass distorts space-time.

(http://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.95/u2y.b57.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warping-spacetime-ligo.jpg)

ya but why?
EMC^2,
why?

That is a toughie. There are actually a few possible answers. Mass has certain properties and it's those properties that define mass. However, it is distinctly possible that one or more of those properties could be the CAUSE of mass. One of those is the curvature of space-time. There is a chance that my statement is reversed; that distortions in space-time CAUSE mass. The idea is that due to the strength of the forces that hold atoms together, they resist the general expansion of space-time. That resistance causes distortions based on the strength of the forces in those atoms and the distortions they cause in response cause the phenomenon we know as mass.

...maybe.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2019, 04:24:41 PM
I would consider your continual appeal to vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence you have no rational objection, even though a semi-objection has already been provided for you.
The atmosphere would not have a significant enough affect to cause the variations observed.
This has been explained repeatedly, yet you ignore it and just repeat the same nonsense.
Why?

Simply because you are incorrect. Scales do vary far greater than a fraction of one percent when left uncalibrated. Easily seen on a bathroom scale.

https://thewirecutter.com/blog/can-i-trust-my-bathroom-scale/

“ A dietician who weighed herself 15 times over the course of a day found that she’d “gained” seven pounds. ”
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 04:33:55 PM
Because you are obviously wrong.
If I was, you would have been able to object to the argument I had provided by actually referencing it and going through it, rather than just spamming links and repeating the same false statement.

Your comparison to a person doing various things throughout the day and having their weight fluctuate is in no way relevant.
You complain about lack of controls and then use a system known for significant variation from a number of factors.
To make it even worse she clearly isn't even wearing the same clothes each time.
The weight of clothes alone would explain a large amount of that apparent variation.

If you wanted that to be meaningful at all you need to weigh a test mass, which will not vary in mass, rather than a human, who is eating, and drinking and excreting waste (including be exhaling) and changing their clothes.

So no, I'm not obviously wrong.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 24, 2019, 04:39:54 PM
I would consider your continual appeal to vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence you have no rational objection, even though a semi-objection has already been provided for you.
The atmosphere would not have a significant enough affect to cause the variations observed.
This has been explained repeatedly, yet you ignore it and just repeat the same nonsense.
Why?

Simply because you are incorrect. Scales do vary far greater than a fraction of one percent when left uncalibrated. Easily seen on a bathroom scale.

https://thewirecutter.com/blog/can-i-trust-my-bathroom-scale/

“ A dietician who weighed herself 15 times over the course of a day found that she’d “gained” seven pounds. ”

What do dieticians and bathroom scales have to do with anything?

In any case, leave it to the crazy Canadians to have their weights and measurements folks be mindful of their weights and measurements. From the Canadian Government:

"Calculate gravity tolerance for scales

The gravity tolerance application calculates the change in gravity between two locations in Canada. This helps you find out whether a non-automatic weighing device can be inspected in one geographic location in Canada, and then put into service in another without requiring readjustment. The application works by calculating the change in gravity percentage and other calibration information. The gravity data generated by the application is provided by Natural Resources Canada's geodetic reference systems."

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm04890.html
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 04:40:26 PM
I would consider your continual appeal to vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence you have no rational objection, even though a semi-objection has already been provided for you.
The atmosphere would not have a significant enough affect to cause the variations observed.
This has been explained repeatedly, yet you ignore it and just repeat the same nonsense.
Why?

Because you are clearly wrong. Scales do vary far greater than a fraction of a percent when left uncalibrated. Easily seen on a bathroom scale.

https://thewirecutter.com/blog/can-i-trust-my-bathroom-scale/

“ A dietician who weighed herself 15 times over the course of a day found that she’d “gained” seven pounds. ”
Stop your silly jokes about bathroom scales!

They have nothing to do with precision absolute gravimeters which do measure the acceleration due to gravity by measuring the fall time of a weight in a vacuum chamber!

And if “A dietician who weighed herself 15 times over the course of a day found that she’d “gained” seven pounds.” I'd suggest that:
Wolfie6020 and Critical Think both used precision scales (not your kitchen type) and rechecked calibrationback at the starting location.

Then Critical Think did a careful error analysis of his reults, then compared his results with what would be expected on a rotating Globe.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2019, 05:05:16 PM
Quote
Your comparison to a person doing various things throughout the day and having their weight fluctuate is in no way relevant.
You complain about lack of controls and then use a system known for significant variation from a number of factors.
To make it even worse she clearly isn't even wearing the same clothes each time.
The weight of clothes alone would explain a large amount of that apparent variation.

The scale increased a pound in an hour, and she said that she didn't eat anything. The next hour she increased another pound. She was changing outfits by the hour? Interesting, but possible.

Quote
Wolfie6020 and Critical Think both used precision scales (not your kitchen type) and rechecked calibrationback at the starting location.

Funny, but in the EU if a scale is not calibrated before use after repositioning then it is not a legitimate measurement device. From a precision scale manual we see:

https://www.soehnle-professional.com/documents/all/406/Manual_9437_EN.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/lCQMBye.png)

Quote
Then Critical Think did a careful error analysis of his reults, then compared his results with what would be expected on a rotating Globe

The nature of the Earth was changed to better explain the results of these experiments:

https://books.google.com/books?id=BYfyCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT2897&dq=weight%20equator%20experiment&pg=PT2897#v=onepage&q&f=false

 “ The celebrated Huygens, by calculating centrifugal forces, had proved that the consequent diminution of weight on the surface of a sphere was not great enough to explain the phenomenon, and that therefore the earth must be a spheroid flattened at the poles. ”

The theory was changed to fit the result, giving us a round world with flattened poles. The ability to change a theory to meet the results exists as a fudge factor. It cannot be claimed that the observation met theory. The theory was adjusted to meet observation.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 24, 2019, 05:42:37 PM
The theory was changed to fit the result, giving us a round world with flattened poles. The ability to change a theory to meet the results exists as a fudge factor. It cannot be claimed that the observation met theory. The theory was adjusted to meet observation.

No shit. That's called the Scientific Method.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 05:45:16 PM
The scale increased a pound in an hour, and she said that she didn't eat anything. The next hour she increased another pound. She was changing outfits by the hour? Interesting, but possible.
So what? She was probably using crappy scales but I still fail to see any relevance.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
Wolfie6020 and Critical Think both used precision scales (not your kitchen type) and rechecked calibrationback at the starting location.

Funny, but in the EU if a scale is not calibrated before use it is not a legitimate measurement device.
No, it's not "funny" at all. It simply means that you simply do not understand what Wolfie6020 and Critical Think were measuring.

They were not measuring whether the mass had changed but measuring whether the weight had changed.
Scales of that type do not measure mass but only weight and can only be used to measure mass accurately by calibration with a standard mass.

That is why Wolfie6020 and Critical Think could not check the scale calibration until they returned to their respective initial locations.

But they were not attempting to do "scientific class measurements" but simply verifying what is already well known.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
<< There's no need. I'm quite aware of all that as I'm sure  Wolfie6020 and Critical Think are. >>
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2019, 09:58:21 PM
It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.

https://bitesizebio.com/33245/drift-measurements-analytical-balances/

Drift in Measurements with Analytical Balances

" Pharmaceutical laboratories and bioscience research institutes make extensive use of analytical balances that are highly sensitive. These analytical balances are greatly affected by their environment and also by the way they are installed and handled. "

The people you cited failed to control for the environment. The experiment is still using ancient methodologies despite modern technology. Did they not know that weighing devices are affected by environment? Not disclosing such information can only be described as deception or ignorance, and I suspect that they are smart enough to figure eout that bringing a scale into another environment might affect the result.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Stash on July 24, 2019, 11:02:35 PM
It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.

https://bitesizebio.com/33245/drift-measurements-analytical-balances/

Drift in Measurements with Analytical Balances

" Pharmaceutical laboratories and bioscience research institutes make extensive use of analytical balances that are highly sensitive. These analytical balances are greatly affected by their environment and also by the way they are installed and handled. "

The people you cited failed to control for the environment. The experiment is still using ancient methodologies despite modern technology. Did they not know that weighing devices are affected by environment? Not disclosing such information can only be described as deception or ignorance, and I suspect that they are smart enough to figure eout that bringing a scale into another environment might affect the result.

Sure, analytical balances are highly sensitive. This from a purveyor of analytical balances:

“Why do I have to calibrate my balance? Wasn’t it done at the factory?”

This question frequently comes up when a customer receives a balance and is instructed by the operator's manual to calibrate it before use. There are many reasons a balance may need to be calibrated:

    - Disturbances during shipping may cause minor changes to the mechanics
    - Temperature changes can affect calibration
    - Some users may use weights that are slightly different from those used at the factory
    - The location may have a different gravitational force than the factory.

The least understood of these reasons is due to the imperfect shape of our planet. Gravity is not the same everywhere on Earth. This is important because balances do not measure mass, instead, they measure the force of gravity pulling the mass towards the center of the Earth.

During calibration a previously determined weight is used to set the balance's parameters and thus guaranteeing its accuracy. For example, when a 1 kilogram mass (the standard) is placed on a balance, its force will read as 1000g. Then any other weight that is put on the balance will be measured against this standard. If it has half the mass it will have half the force on the balance and it will read half

If this balance is moved to a place where the gravity is different, it will display a different value as the force will be different. This is what happens as you move around the world."

https://www.coleparmer.com/tech-article/balance-calibration

So I think it's best to accept the fact that there are variations in gravity and stop charging down this track trying to prove there isn't. Figure out a way that UA absorbs that fact and go from there. I could scour the web and produce a million quotes about how precision scales are calibrated with gravity measurements in mind. Your time is better spent sorting out UA rather than attacking facts.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 11:11:39 PM
It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.

https://bitesizebio.com/33245/drift-measurements-analytical-balances/

Drift in Measurements with Analytical Balances

" Pharmaceutical laboratories and bioscience research institutes make extensive use of analytical balances that are highly sensitive. These analytical balances are greatly affected by their environment and also by the way they are installed and handled. "
You claim that, "It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.
And then quote from Drift in Measurements with Analytical Balances (https://bitesizebio.com/33245/drift-measurements-analytical-balances/)
Which talks about millionth of a gram measurements.

Don't you know the difference between "precision scales" and "analytical balances"?
And "analytical balances" could not be used to perform the same type of experiment.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The people you cited failed to control for the environment. The experiment is still using ancient methodologies despite modern technology. Did they not know that weighing devices are affected by environment? Not disclosing such information can only be described as deception or ignorance, and I suspect that they are smart enough to figure eout that bringing a scale into another environment might affect the result.
And  I suspect that they are far smarter than you at doing this sort of thing.
Especially as Critical Think did do an error analysis to ascertain the probability that his measurements were the result of random variation or really due to the rotation of the earth.

What do you mean by "still using ancient methodologies despite modern technology"?
Have you the slightest idea of the technology in modern precision scales? There's no "ancient methodologies" in them.

You have yet to show that those scale are affected by environment enough to  be significant.

In any case they both returned to base to check the calibration there.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 25, 2019, 12:06:08 AM
I would consider the fact that the weight experiments were not done in vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence that the RE don't really have much evidence on this topic. The experiment has not advanced in 300 years. This uncontrolled experiment showing fractions of a percent differences is referenced again and again mindlessly. Taking an uncalibrated scale from one location to another and finding patterns close to the equator? Really?

In the future when additional and better experiments are conducted we will find that there are no variations by latitude,  like it was discovered for time dilation. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Time_Dilation_by_Latitude)

Do you think  constantly quoting yourself lends any weight to your argument calibrated or not!
Why is it you never publish the results of your own experiments?
Why is it your wiki is full of nothing more than fabricated negativity rather than your own research?
Why is it your wiki doesn’t use flat earth maps? Or do you agree that the maps you are using are valid?
Normally when someone chooses to contradict accepted  scientific principles one does it with corroborated data. Why is it you use nothing more than empty words that carry no weight whatsoever.
The problem is Tom you are denying the truth and refusing to accept simple reality.
Gravity in Death Valley is higher than that at the top f Mammoth pass. Or to put it another way take any place on the earth that has a reasonable difference in elevation and do an experiment. The only thing stopping you Tom is the answer you will get.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 25, 2019, 12:13:24 AM
I would consider your continual appeal to vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence you have no rational objection, even though a semi-objection has already been provided for you.
The atmosphere would not have a significant enough affect to cause the variations observed.
This has been explained repeatedly, yet you ignore it and just repeat the same nonsense.
Why?

Simply because you are incorrect. Scales do vary far greater than a fraction of one percent when left uncalibrated. Easily seen on a bathroom scale.

https://thewirecutter.com/blog/can-i-trust-my-bathroom-scale/

“ A dietician who weighed herself 15 times over the course of a day found that she’d “gained” seven pounds. ”

Not very scientific Tom. How about you get yourself one of these:
https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-gravimeter-drives-out-of-the-lab-and-into-the-hills/

Is this system accurate enough for you Tom? Slightly more accurate than your bathroom scales don’t you think.

Basing your stance on no more than a biased belief is hardly credible, especially when every single geologist bar none would disagree with you.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 25, 2019, 12:39:36 AM
The scale increased a pound in an hour, and she said that she didn't eat anything.
Notice how eating was only one thing I said?
Why ignore the rest?

Just what time are you referring to?
Do you mean the first time she appeared to gain weight after going for a jog, after which she took off her shoes and lost it all and then some?

Then she had a completely different set of clothes on in the next one.

She was changing outfits by the hour?
Have you bothered looking at the photos where she is clearly in different outfits?
Sure, it doesn't change every time (which could just be that the clothes that were changed aren't visible, but it changes quite a lot.

Again, this is a completely useless thing to bring up, incapable of telling basically anything on the topic at hand.

Funny, but in the EU if a scale is not calibrated before use after repositioning then it is not a legitimate measurement device.
Do you know why?
Because they aren't using the scales to measure weight. They are using it to determine mass.
If you move a scale, due to the variations in gravity, the weight of an object of the same mass will vary and thus the scale will report an incorrect mass.

If what you are looking for is weight, rather than mass, the recalibration isn't needed.

Notice how it doesn't say if the temperature changes by a few degrees or the atmospheric pressure changes by a few mbar you need to re-calibrate and instead just requires re-calibration from changing location?

The nature of the Earth was changed to better explain the results of these experiments:
 “ The celebrated Huygens, by calculating centrifugal forces, had proved that the consequent diminution of weight on the surface of a sphere was not great enough to explain the phenomenon, and that therefore the earth must be a spheroid flattened at the poles. ”
You really seem to love quote mining that and lying about what it indicates.

Yes, some people believed Earth to be a perfect sphere, but that wasn't base upon any observation showing it had to be perfect.
It was unscientific to think Earth was a perfect sphere as that wasn't supported by anything.

But here is more of the quote:
"Never did reason and experiment so fully concur to establish a truth. The celebrated Huygens, by calculating centrifugal forces, had proved that the consequent diminution of weight on the surface of a sphere was not great enough to explain the phenomena, and that therefore the earth must be a spheroid flattened at the poles. Newton, by the principles of attraction, had found nearly the same relations; only it must be observed, that Huygens believed this force inherent in bodies determining them towards the centre of the globe, to be every where the same. He had not yet seen the discoveries of Newton; so that he considered the diminution of weight by the theory of centrifugal forces only."

Notice how Newton already figured it out, without needing an experiment to show a problem?
So Newton's predictions were then confirmed by experiment?

So no, observations met theory.
Your argument against it doing so are based upon a source which clearly indicates that they did agree.

It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.
No, it isn't known.
What is known is that precision scales are so precise that even tiny variations can produce a noticeable shift in the reading, such as a person merely leaning on an improper table.

These variations other than due to gravity are much smaller than the variations we are discussing.
As such, it is irrelevant.

However what is known is that the acceleration due to gravity varies around the round Earth.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 25, 2019, 12:58:36 AM
It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.

https://bitesizebio.com/33245/drift-measurements-analytical-balances/

Drift in Measurements with Analytical Balances

" Pharmaceutical laboratories and bioscience research institutes make extensive use of analytical balances that are highly sensitive. These analytical balances are greatly affected by their environment and also by the way they are installed and handled. "

The people you cited failed to control for the environment. The experiment is still using ancient methodologies despite modern technology. Did they not know that weighing devices are affected by environment? Not disclosing such information can only be described as deception or ignorance, and I suspect that they are smart enough to figure eout that bringing a scale into another environment might affect the result.

Tom you are indeed the master of the red herrings and deception for sure. Rather than dealing with precision weight measuring devices that have an accuracy of around 0.0001g and are used for weighing tiny amounts, how about you deal with the actual devices that you fundamentally disagree with, gravimetric devices?
High precision scales are one thing, gravimetric devices are quite another.
Are you saying that you think all geological surveys ever carried out using gravimetric devices are flawed? Are you saying that every mining and oil survey carried out is flawed?
Precisely Tom what is your beef with the undeniable fact that gravity is variable?
Are you saying these gravity maps produced by the British Geological Survey are flawed because you have a problem with your bathroom scales?

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/gravAndMag.html



What precisely is the problem you have with gravitational variation other than it messes with your notion of a flat earth? If you have data to support your position by all means share it, but please avoid quoting yourself or your biased Wiki.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 25, 2019, 04:04:21 PM
I would consider the fact that the weight experiments were not done in vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence that the RE don't really have much evidence on this topic. The experiment has not advanced in 300 years. This uncontrolled experiment showing fractions of a percent differences is referenced again and again mindlessly. Taking an uncalibrated scale from one location to another and finding patterns close to the equator? Really?

In the future when additional and better experiments are conducted we will find that there are no variations by latitude,  like it was discovered for time dilation. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Time_Dilation_by_Latitude)

Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on July 25, 2019, 04:11:29 PM
All this trash talking scales seems to show why it’s better to use a gravimeter to measure gravity.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 25, 2019, 04:39:22 PM
Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for.
It isn't the weight of the atmosphere which can be the issue it is the effect of buoyancy.

However as I showed above, that is insignificant.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 25, 2019, 05:42:26 PM
Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for.
It isn't the weight of the atmosphere which can be the issue it is the effect of buoyancy.

However as I showed above, that is insignificant.

Buoyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more buoyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how buoyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on July 25, 2019, 06:00:42 PM
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 25, 2019, 06:41:58 PM
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.

I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

You have FEers here claiming a steel weight somehow becomes bouyant when air is around it.  Sorry, that's not how that works. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 25, 2019, 08:40:33 PM
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.

I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

You have FEers here claiming a steel weight somehow becomes bouyant when air is around it.  Sorry, that's not how that works.
I eagerly look forward to your disproof of fluid dynamics!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 09:15:09 PM
Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for.
It isn't the weight of the atmosphere which can be the issue it is the effect of buoyancy.

However as I showed above, that is insignificant.

Bouyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more bouyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how bouyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
Look at: Appendix 09: Correcting Mass for the Buoyancy of Air (https://chem.libretexts.org/Ancillary_Materials/Reference/Reference_Tables/Analytic_References/Appendix_09%3A_Correcting_Mass_for_the_Buoyancy_of_Air)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 25, 2019, 10:10:44 PM
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.

I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

You have FEers here claiming a steel weight somehow becomes bouyant when air is around it.  Sorry, that's not how that works.
I eagerly look forward to your disproof of fluid dynamics!

My comment is in the context of atmospheric dynamics, where a less dense parcel of air would become bouyant and rise in a colder, more dense surroundings.  Parcels of air that don't rise are not considered bouyant.  Unless a steel weight lifted, it wouldn't be considered bouyant. Semantics.

 But with respect to fluid dynamics principles, the less dense air at the equator would result in the weight measurement at the equator to be HIGHER than at higher lattitudes, where the air is more dense, contributing to a greater bouyancy effect. 

But, as you can see, it is the other way around.  The centrifugal force of the rotating globe does much more than counteract any affect of the surrounding air.  The observed weight is lower at the equator.

End point:  Your persistence in demanding bouyancy being accounted for has resulted in it working against the FE model. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 26, 2019, 03:04:33 AM
Bouyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more bouyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how bouyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
I would caution against saying people have no idea how buoyancy works when you get it completely wrong.

The buoyant force acts on all objects, based upon the volume of fluid displaced and the density of that fluid.

If you zero the scale, it just accounts for the buoyant force on the scale.
If you then calibrate it with a mass of a known material, it will calibrate based upon the buoyant force of that material.
If you then weigh a different material, with a different density, the buoyant force acting on it will be different and thus not properly accounted for.

Like I asked before, what weighs more, 1 kg of osmium or 1 kg of feathers?
While we are at it, also throw in 1 kg of helium (and ignore the issue with containing it).
Do you think they all weigh the same?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on July 26, 2019, 03:22:05 AM
No dpubt the bouuancy is nelgible on a solid lump of steel vs a helium baloon...but javkB has already pointed out.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 26, 2019, 07:56:53 AM
Bouyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more bouyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how bouyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
I would caution against saying people have no idea how buoyancy works when you get it completely wrong.

The buoyant force acts on all objects, based upon the volume of fluid displaced and the density of that fluid.

If you zero the scale, it just accounts for the buoyant force on the scale.
If you then calibrate it with a mass of a known material, it will calibrate based upon the buoyant force of that material.
If you then weigh a different material, with a different density, the buoyant force acting on it will be different and thus not properly accounted for.

Like I asked before, what weighs more, 1 kg of osmium or 1 kg of feathers?
While we are at it, also throw in 1 kg of helium (and ignore the issue with containing it).
Do you think they all weigh the same?

It looks like you skipped over my last post. It is true that any fluid acts on an object it's surrounded by, decreasing its downward force, measured as buoyancy.

My mistake is that writing about buoyancy, I was talking in terms of atmospheric stability.  So yes, buoyancy acts on all objects in a fluid.

And as I pointed out, buoyancy would lead to a higher weight measurement in a less-dense atmosphere at the equator.  But since the weight measurements are lower at the equator, we know there is another force at work.  In this case centrifugal force.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 26, 2019, 08:13:12 AM
I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

I consider grammar- and spelling-correction to be such an extremely poor form of argument that I have never before used it on this board, because in almost all cases it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument in question.

But I can't help pointing out that in an argument where one party claims expertise and long experience in a field, and then misspells a fundamental word in that field 10 times (hence not just a slip of the fingers while typing) while having an otherwise good command of English is an indication of the competence and attention level of the arguer.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 26, 2019, 08:32:36 AM
I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

I consider grammar- and spelling-correction to be such an extremely poor form of argument that I have never before used it on this board, because in almost all cases it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument in question.

But I can't help pointing out that in an argument where one party claims expertise and long experience in a field, and then misspells a fundamental word in that field 10 times (hence not just a slip of the fingers while typing) while having an otherwise good command of English is an indication of the competence and attention level of the arguer.

Honestly, everytime I write buoyancy, reverse the u and the o.  Same goes with ei in chief. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 26, 2019, 08:39:41 AM
So, out of 136 posts on this thread, there has yet to be an explanation as to how objects weight less at the equator, greater at the poles, and less at higher altitudes.

There's no observed device lifting everything off the ground.

Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

I'm surprised no explanation has been brought forth to explain this.  Actually, I'm not.  Because the world is a globe.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 28, 2019, 06:24:18 AM
In UA, the accelerator is a fundamental property of the universe. It's not a device.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 28, 2019, 08:48:17 AM
In UA, the accelerator is a fundamental property of the universe. It's not a device.

I understand that part.  My point is that the FE model doesn't account for the lower weight measurements at the equator and at higher altitudes.  There's no proposed mechanism or "device" for this.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 28, 2019, 09:21:42 AM
In UA, the accelerator is a fundamental property of the universe. It's not a device.

I understand that part.  My point is that the FE model doesn't account for the lower weight measurements at the equator and at higher altitudes.  There's no proposed mechanism or "device" for this.
It's not that it doesn't account for it. It's more that it's deemed acceptable to say "I don't know, we have not yet figured that out." And plenty of supporters of UA would probably tell you they have, in fact, figured it out, but I don't really know the argument since it's not something I subscribe to. To simply assert that no UA proponent has any answer at all is a huge assumption, and I'm not certain you can assume it to be a fact.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2019, 09:32:46 AM
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 28, 2019, 10:22:21 AM
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.

The weight of atmosphere, when taken into account, gives greater buoyancy at higher lattitudes where the atmospheric pressure is greater than at the equator.  Since the measurements showed lower measured weights at the equator, you see the effect of centrifugal force far outweighing any of these issues you've listed that you say need to be accounted for.

Also, the scale is zeroed out before the steel weight is measured, thereby already accounting for the weight of the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on July 28, 2019, 11:08:17 AM
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.
If you sincerely believe that these experiments need to take place in a vacuum chamber, then feel free to perform such an experiment yourself and let us know your results.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on July 28, 2019, 11:47:19 AM
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
(http://)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 28, 2019, 11:59:54 AM
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
(http://)

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 28, 2019, 01:20:07 PM
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.

Possibly a million geologists would disagree with you. The question for you Tom is what scientific data are you using to base your opinions on, or are they just random opinions?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2019, 02:07:40 PM
This geologist agrees that the theory of gravity variations is not coherent with theory:

https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/gravity-and-isostasy/amp/

" Gravity and Isostasy
 Louis Hissink

Gravitational theory is firmly entrenched as dogma and is unchallengeable and punishable by excommunication and if the heresy great enough, by permanent expulsion from polite society.  It is thus similar to religion in that as a basic premise it cannot be challenged.

So what about isostasy, a theory developed from the observation that surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain? Or that they were not deflected as much as expected.  This observation is similar to the laboratory Cavendish experiment to determine big G, the gravitational constant, where bodies have the attractive force measured in the horizontal plane.  Herein lies the problem and the manner of thinking adopted when anomalous results are observed.

The reaction to the lack off deflection of the plumb-bob from vertical was to assume that the adjacent mountain had a mass shortfall, rather than question the theory that matter attracts matter.  Clearly the lack of attraction observed would lead to one questioning the principle, and not the data, but no, it is the data which are erroneous, and not the principle of gravitation.

This manner of thinking is simply the religious mind at work, for religious minds cannot contradict received authority, here the belief that come what may, matter always attracts matter.  Thuis attitude was driven home when I presented the anomalous downhole survey data to the consulting geophysicists, who opined that if the readings are true, then there had to be a gravitating mass above the drill hole and since this is not observed, which is correct, then the data have to be in error, and an instrument malfunction the cause of the anomalous data preented in Gravity Update previously.  It never occurred to them that maybe the theory is the problem.

Most scientists hold one or other religious beliefs, and the manner in which they think thus determines how they interpret scientific observations, especially observations that cannot be easily tested in a laboratory.  Minds dominated by a belief system inculcated by education, will tend to only see what the believe system asserts, here that matter attracts matter, and hence if the data do not confirm the theory, or belief, then the data have to be in error. This led to the idea of mountain ranges, or some of them, having deep low density roots into the upper mantle, and the development of Plate Tectonics theory. Except that plates with mountains on them with interpreted under-slab keels should not be able to move, but this inconsistency in the theory seems never a problem, and readily explained as a collision effect between two converging tectonic plates.

Because of this manner of thinking, which leads to the illogical scenario of low density rocks floating in a more dense substrate, ice caps are believed to depress the crust underneath them, and when the ice melts, the crust re-adjusts by expanding upwards. Proof of this is the crustal emergence around the Baltic sea due to the melting of the earlier Pleistocene ice age when an ice cap is postulated to have existed in this part of Europe, and also in Canada where crustal uplift is also observed. But just how a rock of density 1 Kg/M^3 can sink into crust of density 2.7Kg/M^3 is explained by the principle of isostasy.  This assertion is simply crazy – logical but crazy and came about from misinterpeting the earlier surveying data where the plumbline did not deflect as expected from calculations compensating for the mass of the adjacent mountain.

In both cases, the non-deflecting plumb-line and the anomlous downhole survey data, the mainstream reaction to the discordant data was to reject the data and confirm the supremacy of the belief in gravitation. But if the theory of gravity is wrong, then a great lot of theory and assumptions become, if not moot, just plain wrong. Retrocalculation of planetary orbits becomes problematical, gravitational accretion becomes a nonsense leading to a rather drastic paradigm shift in the physical sciences. It is tantamount to questioning our cultural world-view, that of the Abrahamic Religions, and that could be a most dangerous entreprise.

One challenge to this world view is being mounted by Tim Cullen at the Malaga Bay Blog, and of course this one has been politically incorrect for a long time.  It is an intellectual battle between the Oriental and Occidental world-views, that of a cyclical orientalism and a linear occidentalism.

Update: I now wonder if Gravity has replaced God as the prime  mover of the Universe. Both are words starting with a capital G "

" Louis Hissink (MSc, Macquarie University) was a consulting diamond geologist, formerly of John Taylors, Western Mining Corporation Ltd and De Beers. He has worked for other smaller companies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. "

On discrepancies, one writer states:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190728080158/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae59/7456f647efb7155ac419edf5c9f38f240fb0.pdf

 “ On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that lowdensity rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’15

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding. ”

"Bouguer Anomalies Over The Continents and Oceans" in the Journal of the Geological Society of India tells us:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj35rvk0_jeAhVknuAKHU-rC7EQFjAAegQIGhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geosocindia.org%2Findex.php%2Fjgsi%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F83944%2F64911&usg=AOvVaw2HzDoF7yD_h3qD27TuGMzb

  “ Why, in general, the Bouguer gravity anomalies are negative in continental areas and positive in oceanic areas? Extending the question further, why do the predominant negative and positive anomalies respectively correspond to the mountain peaks and ocean depths? Although the Bouguer gravity data are not brought on to an even datum, there is fairly a good inverse correlation of Bouguer anomalies with height/depth as well as seismic data. This obviously indicates the excess mass reflected as gravity lows and the deficit mass as gravity highs with respect to the geoid/ellipsoid surface. This is in contrast to the theory of the gravity field which is proportional to the excess or deficit mass. Mathematically speaking, the observed anomalies are proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity, indicating excess mass above the geoid as gravity lows and deficit mass below the geoid as gravity highs. If this were true, far reaching implications arise in the understanding of the theory and interpretation of Bouguer anomalies. ”
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 28, 2019, 03:16:48 PM
The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.
Difference due to variation in buoyancy for any significantly dense object is even less significant.
A tiny fraction of the overall variation observed.
I have already pointed this out repeatedly. Why do you keep ignoring it?

Again:
For steel, with a density of ~8000 kg/m^3, compared to air's ~1.2 kg/m^3, the buoyant force is only 0.015% of the weight of the object.
That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
But that would only apply if we are comparing weights in atmosphere to weights in vacuum.
If you are just measuring it in air, then what is important is the variation in the density of the air.
Again, even assuming an extremely generous 10% variation in the density of the atmosphere, the change in the buoyant force on a steel sample is only going to be 0.0015%.

This is much lower than the observed variations. Enough to ignore it unless you need extremely precise gravity mapping.
If the purpose is to establish a rough scale mapping of gravity as it varies over the globe, you do not need a vacuum.

weight of atmosphere
i.e. density of the atmosphere which contributes to the buoyant force.
humidity
Which affects the density of the atmosphere and thus is the same as above.
static build up
Which is irrelevant for what we are discussing and which a vacuum doesn't help with at all.
moisture
i.e. humidity, and thus still covered by buoyancy.

So the only justification there is to do it in a vacuum is the variation in the buoyant force. But that is insignificant compared to the observed variations and thus no vacuum is needed.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 28, 2019, 03:36:02 PM
This geologist agrees that the theory of gravity variations is not coherent with theory:

https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/gravity-and-isostasy/amp/

" Gravity and Isostasy
 Louis Hissink

Gravitational theory is firmly entrenched as dogma and is unchallengeable and punishable by excommunication and if the heresy great enough, by permanent expulsion from polite society.  It is thus similar to religion in that as a basic premise it cannot be challenged.

So what about isostasy, a theory developed from the observation that surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain? Or that they were not deflected as much as expected.  This observation is similar to the laboratory Cavendish experiment to determine big G, the gravitational constant, where bodies have the attractive force measured in the horizontal plane.  Herein lies the problem and the manner of thinking adopted when anomalous results are observed.

The reaction to the lack off deflection of the plumb-bob from vertical was to assume that the adjacent mountain had a mass shortfall, rather than question the theory that matter attracts matter.  Clearly the lack of attraction observed would lead to one questioning the principle, and not the data, but no, it is the data which are erroneous, and not the principle of gravitation.

This manner of thinking is simply the religious mind at work, for religious minds cannot contradict received authority, here the belief that come what may, matter always attracts matter.  Thuis attitude was driven home when I presented the anomalous downhole survey data to the consulting geophysicists, who opined that if the readings are true, then there had to be a gravitating mass above the drill hole and since this is not observed, which is correct, then the data have to be in error, and an instrument malfunction the cause of the anomalous data preented in Gravity Update previously.  It never occurred to them that maybe the theory is the problem.

Most scientists hold one or other religious beliefs, and the manner in which they think thus determines how they interpret scientific observations, especially observations that cannot be easily tested in a laboratory.  Minds dominated by a belief system inculcated by education, will tend to only see what the believe system asserts, here that matter attracts matter, and hence if the data do not confirm the theory, or belief, then the data have to be in error. This led to the idea of mountain ranges, or some of them, having deep low density roots into the upper mantle, and the development of Plate Tectonics theory. Except that plates with mountains on them with interpreted under-slab keels should not be able to move, but this inconsistency in the theory seems never a problem, and readily explained as a collision effect between two converging tectonic plates.

Because of this manner of thinking, which leads to the illogical scenario of low density rocks floating in a more dense substrate, ice caps are believed to depress the crust underneath them, and when the ice melts, the crust re-adjusts by expanding upwards. Proof of this is the crustal emergence around the Baltic sea due to the melting of the earlier Pleistocene ice age when an ice cap is postulated to have existed in this part of Europe, and also in Canada where crustal uplift is also observed. But just how a rock of density 1 Kg/M^3 can sink into crust of density 2.7Kg/M^3 is explained by the principle of isostasy.  This assertion is simply crazy – logical but crazy and came about from misinterpeting the earlier surveying data where the plumbline did not deflect as expected from calculations compensating for the mass of the adjacent mountain.

In both cases, the non-deflecting plumb-line and the anomlous downhole survey data, the mainstream reaction to the discordant data was to reject the data and confirm the supremacy of the belief in gravitation. But if the theory of gravity is wrong, then a great lot of theory and assumptions become, if not moot, just plain wrong. Retrocalculation of planetary orbits becomes problematical, gravitational accretion becomes a nonsense leading to a rather drastic paradigm shift in the physical sciences. It is tantamount to questioning our cultural world-view, that of the Abrahamic Religions, and that could be a most dangerous entreprise.

One challenge to this world view is being mounted by Tim Cullen at the Malaga Bay Blog, and of course this one has been politically incorrect for a long time.  It is an intellectual battle between the Oriental and Occidental world-views, that of a cyclical orientalism and a linear occidentalism.

Update: I now wonder if Gravity has replaced God as the prime  mover of the Universe. Both are words starting with a capital G "

" Louis Hissink (MSc, Macquarie University) was a consulting diamond geologist, formerly of John Taylors, Western Mining Corporation Ltd and De Beers. He has worked for other smaller companies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. "

On discrepancies, one writer states:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190728080158/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae59/7456f647efb7155ac419edf5c9f38f240fb0.pdf

 “ On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that lowdensity rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’15

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding. ”

"Bouguer Anomalies Over The Continents and Oceans" in the Journal of the Geological Society of India tells us:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj35rvk0_jeAhVknuAKHU-rC7EQFjAAegQIGhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geosocindia.org%2Findex.php%2Fjgsi%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F83944%2F64911&usg=AOvVaw2HzDoF7yD_h3qD27TuGMzb

  “ Why, in general, the Bouguer gravity anomalies are negative in continental areas and positive in oceanic areas? Extending the question further, why do the predominant negative and positive anomalies respectively correspond to the mountain peaks and ocean depths? Although the Bouguer gravity data are not brought on to an even datum, there is fairly a good inverse correlation of Bouguer anomalies with height/depth as well as seismic data. This obviously indicates the excess mass reflected as gravity lows and the deficit mass as gravity highs with respect to the geoid/ellipsoid surface. This is in contrast to the theory of the gravity field which is proportional to the excess or deficit mass. Mathematically speaking, the observed anomalies are proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity, indicating excess mass above the geoid as gravity lows and deficit mass below the geoid as gravity highs. If this were true, far reaching implications arise in the understanding of the theory and interpretation of Bouguer anomalies. ”

Your post is about the plumb-bob deflection experiment, which had to account for varying densities in the Earth's composition vs the mass of a mountain, making it difficult to ascertain either them.  Later experiments acheived greater accuracy, leading to a better understanding of Earth's composition.  Either way, positive gravity anomalies aren't necessarily at mountains.  They're also over India. 

But that's not even what my post is about.  It's that gravity decreases as you increase in altitude, and gravity is weaker at the equator.  Thus far, no FE model has been presented that provides an explanation for this.  The plumb-Bob test wasn't even testing that.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2019, 04:23:08 PM
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.

https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/

" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION

In more complex terms, scale calibration involves the process of comparing a known standard, such as a calibration service’s certified weights, to the results given by the unit that is being tested (your company’s scales). Such a procedure ensures the accuracy of the unit being tested. When your business relies on accuracy of weights to run and operate smoothly and protect profits, calibration of your scales is not negotiable. It is an absolute must and will also ensure that your business is adhering to industry standards and Canadian laws and regulations if you use the weights and measurements to calculate truck loads.

Why Is Calibrating Your Business’s Scales So Important?

While you may not realize it, your business’s scales and the accuracy they produce have a direct impact on your company’s bottom line. If your scales are off, your profits can be off as well. For example, let’s say that your business deals in a very expensive powdered cleaning product. If the product cost is $10 per pound and on average you weigh 1,000 pounds of product per day, the total value of product weighed each day is $10,000.

Now, let’s say that your scale is out of balance by just 0.5 percent. That discrepancy will cost you approximately $50 per day, or $1,000 a month. Unless your company is in the position to literally throw away $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), then it becomes very apparent why scale calibration is a necessity. In fact, keeping these numbers in mind, one can actually say that such a service is actually an insurance policy protecting your business’s bottom line, rather than just another routine business expense. "
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 28, 2019, 04:55:46 PM
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.

https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/

" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION

In more complex terms, scale calibration involves the process of comparing a known standard, such as a calibration service’s certified weights, to the results given by the unit that is being tested (your company’s scales). Such a procedure ensures the accuracy of the unit being tested. When your business relies on accuracy of weights to run and operate smoothly and protect profits, calibration of your scales is not negotiable. It is an absolute must and will also ensure that your business is adhering to industry standards and Canadian laws and regulations if you use the weights and measurements to calculate truck loads.

Why Is Calibrating Your Business’s Scales So Important?

While you may not realize it, your business’s scales and the accuracy they produce have a direct impact on your company’s bottom line. If your scales are off, your profits can be off as well. For example, let’s say that your business deals in a very expensive powdered cleaning product. If the product cost is $10 per pound and on average you weigh 1,000 pounds of product per day, the total value of product weighed each day is $10,000.

Now, let’s say that your scale is out of balance by just 0.5 percent. That discrepancy will cost you approximately $50 per day, or $1,000 a month. Unless your company is in the position to literally throw away $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), then it becomes very apparent why scale calibration is a necessity. In fact, keeping these numbers in mind, one can actually say that such a service is actually an insurance policy protecting your business’s bottom line, rather than just another routine business expense. "

No, Tom.  Gravity anomalies are an integral part of how a rotating globe works.  The centrifugal force at the equator is demonstrated in this experiment.   
Note, the scale is calibrated in the experiment.

   The Flat Earth model does not account for this at all.  Also, according to the inverse square law, gravity decreases with altitude...another element not accounted for in the FE model that is elementary in the RE model.

By the way, here is my original post for reference.


"FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this......"

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 28, 2019, 07:07:00 PM
By the way, here is my original post for reference.


"FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this......"
Thanks for bringing the OP up again. Especially the "Earth cannot be flat because of this" part. Because it's wrong, even though you keep bringing it up. The entire thread can be closed, based on that fact alone.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 28, 2019, 07:16:50 PM
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.
No, Anomalies in gravimetry are not in any way, shape or form inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity. Why would you suggest that they are?
Dense ore bodies and high mountains can cause what you would call gravity anomolies.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.
https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/
" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION
But even that gives no indication of the drift that might be expected over a few days.

All of that is, however, totally irrelevant to the measurement of gravity anomalies because only amateurs demonstrating the variations in g with latitude and E-W velocity would use them these precision scales as "gravimeters".

Professionals doing serious measurements of gravity anomalies would use either absolute or relative gravimeters. You might read:
        Learn more about Gravimeter: Exploration Geophysics (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gravimeter)
        Geophysics: Gravity anomalies of some simple structures. (https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B4-2008.pdf)
        Gravity: Theory and measurement. (https://rallen.berkeley.edu/teaching/F04_GEO594_IntroAppGeophys/Lectures/L02_GravTheoryMeasurement.pdf)
And absolute gravimeters have been described previously.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on July 28, 2019, 08:23:57 PM
The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.
First of all, how often do you think that scales need to be calibrated?

Secondly, one of the things that calibrating the scale does is to adjust for the local value of g.  If you're trying to measure variations in local values of g, then it doesn't make sense to keep calibrating your scale to the local value of g every time you move your scale, does it?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Macarios on July 28, 2019, 08:52:30 PM
Ok, the Universal Acceleration is property of the Universe.
It accelerates the whole Earth up together as integral chunk.
Changing altitude in that case won't change the effect of gravity.
The one, single Earth is "accelerating" towards objetse at lower altitude and objects at higher altitude?

Keep one gravimeter low (say, at sea level) and measure how fast is Earth acceleating towards it.
Bring another gravimeter high (say, in an anchored balloon above the same point) and measure how fast is Earth accelerating towards it.
It is well known (measured and documented) that in reality the "acceleration of the same ground towards such two points" differs.

Why and how would the same Earth at the same time accelerate differently towards two points one above the other?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some tried to explain the difference by existence of some "celestial gravitation"
that would selectively exist between celestial bodies and earthly bodies,
but not between two or more earthly bodies alone.
Some massive celestial bodies, say, "the Dome", would have gravitational properties and pull earthly bodies from above to reduce their weight.
("We don't know the actual configuration of the bottom surface of the Dome.")
But for that to affect earthly bodies the earthy bodies would have to have the same properties.

Electric fields only exert forces on bodies with electric properties (electric charge ability). Bodies with such properties also interact with each other that way.
Magnetic fields only exert forces on bodies with magnetic properties (magnetic polarization ability). Bodies with such properties also interact with each other that way.
Gravitational fields (celestial or not) only exert forces on bodies with gravitational properties (mass). Bodies with such properties also interact with each other that way.

Plus, nobody has ever shown the existence of such celestial bodies (say, "the Dome") in reality.

"Rocket hit the Dome at the altitude of 73 miles."
"North Korean ICBM reached the altitude of 2314.5 miles on July 28, 2017." (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-14 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-14))
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 28, 2019, 10:09:56 PM
This geologist agrees that the theory of gravity variations is not coherent with theory:

https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/gravity-and-isostasy/amp/

" Gravity and Isostasy
 Louis Hissink

Gravitational theory is firmly entrenched as dogma and is unchallengeable and punishable by excommunication and if the heresy great enough, by permanent expulsion from polite society.  It is thus similar to religion in that as a basic premise it cannot be challenged.

So what about isostasy, a theory developed from the observation that surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain? Or that they were not deflected as much as expected.  This observation is similar to the laboratory Cavendish experiment to determine big G, the gravitational constant, where bodies have the attractive force measured in the horizontal plane.  Herein lies the problem and the manner of thinking adopted when anomalous results are observed.
Who says that "surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain"?

At the time of the Schiehallion experiment the average density of the earth was unknown although the densities of mountains could at least be estimated.

You might read the following extract:
Quote
Schiehallion experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment)
The Schiehallion experiment was an 18th-century experiment to determine the mean density of the Earth. Funded by a grant from the Royal Society, it was conducted in the summer of 1774 around the Scottish mountain of Schiehallion, Perthshire. The experiment involved measuring the tiny deflection of a pendulum due to the gravitational attraction of a nearby mountain. Schiehallion was considered the ideal location after a search for candidate mountains, thanks to its isolation and almost symmetrical shape. One of the triggers for the experiment were anomalies noted during the survey of the Mason–Dixon line.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finding the mountain

Chimborazo, 1738
A pair of French astronomers named Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie de La Condamine were the first to attempt the experiment, conducting their measurements on the 6,268-metre (20,564 ft) volcano Chimborazo in Ecuador[a] in 1738. Their expedition had left France for South America in 1735 to try to measure the meridian arc length of one degree of latitude near the equator, but they took advantage of the opportunity to attempt the deflection experiment. In December 1738, under very difficult conditions of terrain and climate, they conducted a pair of measurements at altitudes of 4,680 and 4,340 m.Bouguer wrote in a 1749 paper that they had been able to detect a deflection of 8 seconds of arc, but he downplayed the significance of their results, suggesting that the experiment would be better carried out under easier conditions in France or England. He added that the experiment had at least proved that the Earth could not be a hollow shell, as some thinkers of the day, including Edmond Halley, had suggested.

Schiehallion, 1774
That a further attempt should be made on the experiment was proposed to the Royal Society in 1772 by Nevil Maskelyne, Astronomer Royal. He suggested that the experiment would "do honour to the nation where it was made" and proposed Whernside in Yorkshire, or the Blencathra-Skiddaw massif in Cumberland as suitable targets. The Royal Society formed the Committee of Attraction to consider the matter, appointing Maskelyne, Joseph Banks and Benjamin Franklin amongst its members. The Committee despatched the astronomer and surveyor Charles Mason to find a suitable mountain.

After a lengthy search over the summer of 1773, Mason reported that the best candidate was Schiehallion(then spelled Schehallien), a 1,083 m (3,553 ft) peak lying between Loch Tay and Loch Rannoch in the central Scottish Highlands. The mountain stood in isolation from any nearby hills, which would reduce their gravitational influence, and its symmetrical east–west ridge would simplify the calculations. Its steep northern and southern slopes would allow the experiment to be sited close to its centre of mass, maximising the deflection effect. Coincidentally, the summit lies almost exactly at the latitudinal and longitudinal centre of Scotland.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To determine the deflection due to the mountain, it was necessary to account for the curvature of the Earth: an observer moving north or south will see the local zenith shift by the same angle as any change in latitude. After accounting for observational effects such as precession, aberration of light and nutation, Maskelyne showed that the difference between the locally determined zenith for observers north and south of Schiehallion was 54.6 arc seconds. Once the surveying team had provided a difference of 42.94″ latitude between the two stations, he was able to subtract this, and after rounding to the accuracy of his observations, announce that the sum of the north and south deflections was 11.6″.

Maskelyne published his initial results in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1775, using preliminary data on the mountain's shape and hence the position of its center of gravity. This led him to expect a deflection of 20.9″ if the mean densities of Schiehallion and the Earth were equal. Since the deflection was about half this, he was able to make a preliminary announcement that the mean density of the Earth was approximately double that of Schiehallion. A more accurate value would have to await completion of the surveying process.

Maskelyne took the opportunity to note that Schiehallion exhibited a gravitational attraction, and thus all mountains did; and that Newton's inverse square law of gravitation had been confirmed. An appreciative Royal Society presented Maskelyne with the 1775 Copley Medal; the biographer Chalmers later noting that "If any doubts yet remained with respect to the truth of the Newtonian system, they were now totally removed".
Please note this part, "This led him to expect a deflection of 20.9″ if the mean densities of Schiehallion and the Earth were equal. Since the deflection was about half this, he was able to make a preliminary announcement that the mean density of the Earth was approximately double that of Schiehallion".

Here is another reference to that experiment: The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow: 31st October, 1990 Maskelyne on Schiehallion (http://www.sillittopages.co.uk/schie/schie90.html)

So one could say that the deflection of 11.6″ was less than the expected deflection of 20.9″ but that 20.9″ was based on Schiehallion having the same density as the rest of the earth.

Then in 1788/89 the Cavendish experiment was performed with the express purpose of determining the average density of the earth.
That experiment "found that the Earth's density was 5.448±0.033 times that of water" consistent with, but far more accurate than, the Schiehallion measurement.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on July 28, 2019, 10:32:47 PM
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
(http://)

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.

Strange you are here. Yes, I do not speak English ... But I have not seen such information in English. If you are not able to read the subtitles, then where am I?
You are not interested in the result, and you are not aware that we may soon be flying, subjecting gravity. Acceleration is only a special case of the whole picture. How will I laugh, when you then argue about how all the same gravitole fly. No, you will say that they are not real as the satellites above us ... For now.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2019, 01:02:15 AM
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies.
The topic of the thread is variation in gravity with latitude.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible
No it isn't, just that the error is smaller than the variation observed.

in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.
You mean consistent with it.
The problem is they want to measure mass, not weight.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small
Drift in mass, based upon how much money you want to lose, by a company trying to get you to pay them to re-calibrate.

They are just using a number most people consider small.
They aren't demonstrating that this number is actually a likely drift.

If all the factors you listed were so important, scales would need to be calibrated on a hour by hour basis, or more.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on July 29, 2019, 04:33:30 AM
Quote
.....Then in 1788/89 the Cavendish experiment was performed with the express purpose of determining the average density of the earth.
That experiment "found that the Earth's density was 5.448±0.033 times that of water" consistent with, but far more accurate than, the Schiehallion measurement.

You what serezno you trust in all this nonsense?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on July 29, 2019, 04:45:28 AM
Tell me, what experiments could people do by definition of gravity. When did they fly into space at that time? Yes, they all already knew, it came up with a fairy tale for us. Read the rhymedodynamics, and then as in Hladi there is a standing wave gathering a point of attraction to the center in the earth's crust. Planets go around the sun like that. There is the concept of orbital resonance ... All this is the other side of the coin. In general, the moon is not a piece of cheese, and the first descendants of Eve were immortal - the koshche, which now fly on UFOs. Why should I believe some Einstein when all the facts shout the opposite?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 29, 2019, 04:51:25 AM
Quote
.....Then in 1788/89 the Cavendish experiment was performed with the express purpose of determining the average density of the earth.
That experiment "found that the Earth's density was 5.448±0.033 times that of water" consistent with, but far more accurate than, the Schiehallion measurement.

You what serezno you trust in all this nonsense?
Why not?
It has been verified by hundreds of similar experiments since that time. So it seems as though it is not nonsense.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 29, 2019, 06:21:56 AM
Tell me, what experiments could people do by definition of gravity. When did they fly into space at that time? Yes, they all already knew, it came up with a fairy tale for us. Read the rhymedodynamics, and then as in Hladi there is a standing wave gathering a point of attraction to the center in the earth's crust. Planets go around the sun like that. There is the concept of orbital resonance ... All this is the other side of the coin. In general, the moon is not a piece of cheese, and the first descendants of Eve were immortal - the koshche, which now fly on UFOs. Why should I believe some Einstein when all the facts shout the opposite?

So let’s see if I understand you correctly:
You say you’re a pony with wings
You believe that the Koshche fly around in spaceships
You believe there was some kind of major atomic related incident in what was the USSR prior to WW1 and have a belief in history that is totally at odds with what’s accepted
You also say Space travel by human society in a fairy tale and believe all that said Einstein was fakery!



Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 29, 2019, 09:14:41 AM
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
(http://)

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.

Strange you are here. Yes, I do not speak English ... But I have not seen such information in English. If you are not able to read the subtitles, then where am I?
You are not interested in the result, and you are not aware that we may soon be flying, subjecting gravity. Acceleration is only a special case of the whole picture. How will I laugh, when you then argue about how all the same gravitole fly. No, you will say that they are not real as the satellites above us ... For now.

The subtitles look like they're in Russian.  I am not sure what you are writing either.  We have satellites above us that orbit the Earth and we have airplanes that fly.  I'm not sure if that answers your question.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 29, 2019, 09:17:46 AM
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 29, 2019, 10:40:32 AM

Note, the scale is calibrated in the experiment.


Notes:
The scale is calibrated in one location, Perth.
The scale is then moved to a different location.
The manufacturer's instructions state "the weighing range can shift slightly during the shipping". While the wording is clumsy and inaccurate (the change in the weighing range is not corrected by calibration, the correction to the scale's reading at 500g is) the intent is clear. Moving the scale can change its calibration. This is standard. Ask anyone who uses these types of balances in a laboratory setting. Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
The manufacturer's instructions also clearly state "If scale begins to show inaccuracies, please perform calibration with the scale with a ... calibration weight."
The experimenter does not exercise good standard laboratory practices. Precision calibration weights should not be handled with bare skin (done multiple times) and banged against a table (done multiple times).

So. According to the manufacturer:
If the scale shows inaccuracies, the scale should be recalibrated.
The experimenter calibrated the scale.
The experimenter moved the scale to a different city (method not specified).
The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
The manufacturer specifies that at this point, the scale should be recalibrated, which was not done.
If it had been done, the scale would have read 500.00g, which is what the scale is intended to do when a 500g calibration weight is placed on it.

This scale cannot used as a measuring standard in the experiment as shown. It is not designed to independently measure weight unless calibrated against a standard.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 29, 2019, 11:48:27 AM
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2019, 01:49:36 PM
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass, which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

If it had been done, the scale would have read 500.00g, which is what the scale is intended to do when a 500g calibration weight is placed on it.
Which is why calibrating based upon a known mass instead of a known weight is pointless for an experiment like this.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 29, 2019, 01:57:58 PM
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

Come on Jane how about you give some solid verifiable facts that can explain how gravity can be measured by anyone who cares to do it and be shown to be variable according to well-known factors. Can you also explain how geologists for many years have been using these facts to produce and use gravity maps in their search for both oil and minerals?
Can you also explain how in the case of the Chicxulub crater, discovered by  Antonio Camargo and Glen Penfield during a survey the gravity anomaly the meteor created can be mapped precisely using the variations in gravity produced by the impact that caused the increases in rock density?

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gravity-anomalies-over-Chicxulub-crater-Horizontal-gravity-gradient-gravity-units-per_fig9_249057175

Are you saying the scientists who produced this and other gravity maps are in error?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on July 29, 2019, 02:11:45 PM
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.

https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/

" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION

In more complex terms, scale calibration involves the process of comparing a known standard, such as a calibration service’s certified weights, to the results given by the unit that is being tested (your company’s scales). Such a procedure ensures the accuracy of the unit being tested. When your business relies on accuracy of weights to run and operate smoothly and protect profits, calibration of your scales is not negotiable. It is an absolute must and will also ensure that your business is adhering to industry standards and Canadian laws and regulations if you use the weights and measurements to calculate truck loads.

Why Is Calibrating Your Business’s Scales So Important?

While you may not realize it, your business’s scales and the accuracy they produce have a direct impact on your company’s bottom line. If your scales are off, your profits can be off as well. For example, let’s say that your business deals in a very expensive powdered cleaning product. If the product cost is $10 per pound and on average you weigh 1,000 pounds of product per day, the total value of product weighed each day is $10,000.

Now, let’s say that your scale is out of balance by just 0.5 percent. That discrepancy will cost you approximately $50 per day, or $1,000 a month. Unless your company is in the position to literally throw away $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), then it becomes very apparent why scale calibration is a necessity. In fact, keeping these numbers in mind, one can actually say that such a service is actually an insurance policy protecting your business’s bottom line, rather than just another routine business expense. "

If your business is measuring very small quantities, sure your scales need to be calibrated as do all scientific instruments that's why the French government have been so protective of thee Kilogram, though the definition has recently been changed is now based on an electric current rather than a shiny lump of metal.

However, that has little to do with the production of gravity maps like this famous one from the Yukatan

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gravity-anomalies-over-Chicxulub-crater-Horizontal-gravity-gradient-gravity-units-per_fig9_249057175

This clearly shows the gravity anomaly that was produced by the meteor impact, an how rock density, as well as elevation and latitude, can affect gravity.

Are you saying gravity maps are not real Tom, are you saying all the geoligist who both make and use them are in error, please explain.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 29, 2019, 02:23:49 PM
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass,

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.

which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.

If it had been done, the scale would have read 500.00g, which is what the scale is intended to do when a 500g calibration weight is placed on it.
Which is why calibrating based upon a known mass instead of a known weight is pointless for an experiment like this.
Yep. That is one thing we agree on.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 29, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
Are you saying the scientists who produced this and other gravity maps are in error?
No, that was the exact opposite of what I said, troll harder next time.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on July 29, 2019, 02:42:32 PM
Ha
I think jane is just calling flech a jackass for picknig a fight.
Very un-marcos of flech.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 29, 2019, 03:13:14 PM
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 29, 2019, 03:16:09 PM
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out.
*goes to first page*
*fucking Rab gives you an answer to altitude, if bastardised, by reply 2*
Yep, you're totally not making that up just to convince yourself you contributed something that hasn't been covered hundreds of times before.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 29, 2019, 03:32:46 PM
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out.
*goes to first page*
*fucking Rab gives you an answer to altitude, if bastardised, by reply 2*
Yep, you're totally not making that up just to convince yourself you contributed something that hasn't been covered hundreds of times before.

His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration/gravity with decreasing latitude.

Are you here to defend celestial gravitation?  Do you have some answer you care to share?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 29, 2019, 03:40:37 PM
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass,

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.

which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
But your explanation of "inaccuracy" loses a little weight when the experiment is performed a number of times by different people and they all achieved similar results.


How I destroyed flat Earth idiocy – Earth is not spinning? by Olivier Joseph



Flat Earth vs Globe - Does weight change with Latitude?

Is this evidence the Earth is spinning? by Wolfie6020
     
Flat Earth vs Globe - The Eötvös effect observed in aircraft

- how does it affect Gravity? by Wolfie6020


Flat Earth Crushed by a 500g Weight by Critical Think,

Quote
In experiment measuring a standard weight at different latitudes.
At 5:12 it should read 7.9 N Doh! Missed that typo!
If you dispute any results see below.


Zero Probability: Flat Earth by Critical Think
     
Zero Probability: Flat Earth - Part 2: The method

by Critical Think
     
Zero Probability: Flat Earth - Part 3: Error Analysis

by Critical Think

Did they all get random errors that led to the similar results - that gravity varies predictably with latitude (and with West-East vs East-West velocity).
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 29, 2019, 03:44:58 PM
His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration at the equator.
Because everyone's sick to death of discussing it because it is an absurdly overdone discussion to the point that even Rabinoz will bring it up, and he'd kick up a fuss if a FEer said the sky was blue. Trust me, acting cocky is doing you no favours.

You get some people that deny accurate measurement of the variation, which more often than not ties into completely different aspects of FET because they've rather unsurprisingly got different laws of physics to RET because, see again, FET, naturally there are things an RE understanding doesn't take into account. There are those that reject them just generally, mind you, but hey.
Then you get to celestial gravitation, which functions on the premise gravity is more akin to magnetism; only certain materials exert it, and affect many more than just those that exert it. Hence stars can exert it, while not enough of the Earth to turn it into a ball does. You can easily use a variation of that with materials within the Earth to justify variation in net force depending on distance from the pole, though offhand I couldn't tell you how many do that. Latitude is definitely the better argument there but, again, doesn't justify lying about no answer being given to altitude.
Celestial gravitation fits with the UA model neatly. Then you get onto non-UA models, which most users here accept, from denpressure to DET to AFET to non-Euclidean and... how much time do you have?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2019, 03:46:13 PM
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with
But we aren't discussing what you work with.
We are discussing using them to measure variations in g across Earth.

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.
Not if you are trying to use it to determine weight instead of mass.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
Yes, the experiment should have more than just 2 data points. But that doesn't mean that the reading in the experiment was an inaccuracy rather than simply a different measurement.

However there are plenty of other such measurements.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 29, 2019, 03:46:52 PM
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass,

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.

which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
But your explanation of "inaccuracy" loses a little weight when the experiment is performed a number of times by different people and they all achieved similar results.
But that's not part of this experiment.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 29, 2019, 03:48:13 PM
*goes to first page*
*fucking Rab gives you an answer to altitude, if bastardised, by reply 2*
Yep, you're totally not making that up just to convince yourself you contributed something that hasn't been covered hundreds of times before.
Cut the crude language thank you, Lady ::) Jane!

And I thought that nobody read or cared what I wrote.

But you might read all that I wrote:
They claim that "Celestial Gravitation" causes the variation of g with altitude:
Quote
TIDAL EFFECTS
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
But
  • In my book gravity is gravitation.
  • How the moon and stars can explain a predictable variation with altitude is unexplained.
  • Why g varies with latitude seems inexplicable.
Note that I asked, "How the moon and stars can explain a predictable variation with altitude is unexplained."
Maybe you could answer that one!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2019, 03:51:36 PM
Celestial gravitation fits with the UA model neatly. Then you get onto non-UA models, which most users here accept, from denpressure to DET to AFET to non-Euclidean and... how much time do you have?
Celestial gravitation only "fits" if you also accept some unseen celestial object which produces the variation, as the variations don't map to any observable object.
Denpressure and DETBS are dead in the water, incapable of any explanation without jumping into numerous contradictions.
AFET I haven't looked into much and seems to just be Sandy's pet project involving rejecting large amounts of reality, and I haven't seen any attempt at explaining the variation in g with latitude or altitude.
Non-Euclidean literally means non-flat, so it isn't a FE model.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 29, 2019, 03:55:52 PM
But that's not part of this experiment.
But it is very relevant to the topic, which happens to be: "Acceleration is not constant on Earth"!
And it is very relevant to at least the first part of:
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.
So, as a first step, do you accept that "Acceleration is not constant on Earth"? Let's establish that first and then you can explain how that can be explained on a flat earth.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 29, 2019, 04:09:27 PM
His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration at the equator.
Because everyone's sick to death of discussing it because it is an absurdly overdone discussion to the point that even Rabinoz will bring it up, and he'd kick up a fuss if a FEer said the sky was blue.
Cut out utterly stupid accusations like "he'd kick up a fuss if a FEer said the sky was blue", thank you Lady Jane!
I'll kick up a fuss whenever you try to support the unsupportable.

Quote from: Jane
Trust me, acting cocky is doing you no favours.
No, it doesn't! Take note Lady Jane!

Quote from: Jane
You get some people that deny accurate measurement of the variation, which more often than not ties into completely different aspects of FET because they've rather unsurprisingly got different laws of physics to RET because, see again, FET, naturally there are things an RE understanding doesn't take into account. There are those that reject them just generally, mind you, but hey.
Then you get to celestial gravitation, which functions on the premise gravity is more akin to magnetism; only certain materials exert it, and affect many more than just those that exert it. Hence stars can exert it, while not enough of the Earth to turn it into a ball does. You can easily use a variation of that with materials within the Earth to justify variation in net force depending on distance from the pole, though offhand I couldn't tell you how many do that. Latitude is definitely the better argument there but, again, doesn't justify lying about no answer being given to altitude.
Celestial gravitation fits with the UA model neatly.
So you replace sound theories with total guesses and unsupported hypotheses. I doubt that anyone regards your guesses seriously.

Quote from: Jane
Then you get onto non-UA models, which most users here accept, from denpressure to DET to AFET to non-Euclidean and... how much time do you have?
Give us a break. Surely by now some "flat earth model" has been decided as the correct one.
But if one flat earth model doesn't fit your dive into your "little bottom drawer" and drag out a few more ;D.

How do any of those explain the predictable observation that "Acceleration is not constant on Earth"? Please explain.


Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 29, 2019, 04:11:18 PM
And I thought that nobody read or cared what I wrote.
Well everyone else did ignore it.

Quote
Note that I asked, "How the moon and stars can explain a predictable variation with altitude is unexplained."
Maybe you could answer that one!
Uniform (or near-uniform) distribution of stars. Not complicated.

Quote
So you replace sound theories with total guesses and unsupported hypotheses. I doubt that anyone regards your guesses seriously.
Um, no? No I don't? I just call out false claims about FET. That doesn't make FET true. Seriously Rab, that's weak even by your standards.
Criticise the evidence behind it all you want, just don't deny the existence of the responses. I cannot believe you still need that explained to you.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 29, 2019, 04:17:33 PM
His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration at the equator.
Because everyone's sick to death of discussing it because it is an absurdly overdone discussion to the point that even Rabinoz will bring it up, and he'd kick up a fuss if a FEer said the sky was blue. Trust me, acting cocky is doing you no favours.

You get some people that deny accurate measurement of the variation, which more often than not ties into completely different aspects of FET because they've rather unsurprisingly got different laws of physics to RET because, see again, FET, naturally there are things an RE understanding doesn't take into account. There are those that reject them just generally, mind you, but hey.
Then you get to celestial gravitation, which functions on the premise gravity is more akin to magnetism; only certain materials exert it, and affect many more than just those that exert it. Hence stars can exert it, while not enough of the Earth to turn it into a ball does. You can easily use a variation of that with materials within the Earth to justify variation in net force depending on distance from the pole, though offhand I couldn't tell you how many do that. Latitude is definitely the better argument there but, again, doesn't justify lying about no answer being given to altitude.
Celestial gravitation fits with the UA model neatly. Then you get onto non-UA models, which most users here accept, from denpressure to DET to AFET to non-Euclidean and... how much time do you have?


You say it's an overdone discussion. The Flat Earth Society forums have been online for at least 12 years, and I imagine at some point every topic imaginable has been discussed.  Well, that's why there is a debate forum.  I want to see someone debate it.

Summarized from FE Wiki
UA: Earth does not have gravity but the stars do. The stars exert gravity on objects on Earth, while the Earth and the stars are all accelerating upwards.  Or is this the model that doesn't accept gravity?

Davis Plane: Gravity does exist, but the Earth is an infinite plane, accounting for variation with altitude but not latitude.

Which one do you feel like believing or defending?

I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?

If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 29, 2019, 04:36:13 PM
You say it's an overdone discussion. The Flat Earth Society forums have been online for at least 12 years, and I imagine at some point every topic imaginable has been discussed.
Some more than others. The problem is when you come in with the attitude of 'I and I alone have asked this question no one has thought to answer!' rather than considering how utterly exhausting the cliches are for the regular FEers in the upper forums. Bishop doesn't post too much, I'm playing werewolf in the lower forums, even now you're not getting the people that normally debate it because why would they? What could they possibly have to gain from having the same discussion for the hundredth time for someone that's given every indication they'll just ignore answers provided?

Quote
Which one do you feel like believing or defending?

I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?

If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.
I'll 'defend' any model that has a response to this question, rather than outright changing the topic to source of acceleration. (That just takes you through dark energy and sometimes tachyons, and has nothing to do with constancy of acceleration).
The stars aren't 25 trillion miles away under any FE model, outside of the non-Euclidean. It doesn't work; the Sun has to be a nearby spotlight of some sort for it to have anything even approaching the motion we observe, and by parallax that tells us the stars need to be much closer. That's more rigorous, more intuitively is just the fact that under FET, the centre of the Earth is the centre of motion for, well, pretty much everything, so that indicates the Earth is much more significant than in RET, and other celestial bodies are much smaller and closer than RET states.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 29, 2019, 04:41:16 PM
I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?
This has literally already been answered in this thread. Stop asking questions that have already been answered to you, and stop pretending you haven't seen them.

Quote
If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.
You are assuming orthodox rules of physics apply to FE, with distances deduced using those orthodox rules. Can you see the contradiction there?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 29, 2019, 04:46:29 PM
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with
But we aren't discussing what you work with.
We are discussing using them to measure variations in g across Earth.

You are the one who started discussing my calibration activities.

Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.
Not if you are trying to use it to determine weight instead of mass.
The manufacturer states explicitly and implicitly through its calibration procedure that a 500.00g mass should read 500.00g on the scale and that a deviation from that is an inaccuracy.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
Yes, the experiment should have more than just 2 data points. But that doesn't mean that the reading in the experiment was an inaccuracy rather than simply a different measurement.
A measurement different than the one intended by the manufacturer's procedure is an inaccuracy. In this case an inaccuracy that requires recalibration. Of course a different value of g can be the cause of the inaccuracy (as can many other factors). But claiming the measurement is not an inaccuracy is just plain wrong.

However there are plenty of other such measurements.

An experiment was presented. I am commenting on the details of that experiment and no others.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 29, 2019, 08:15:35 PM
I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?
This has literally already been answered in this thread. Stop asking questions that have already been answered to you, and stop pretending you haven't seen them.

Quote
If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.
You are assuming orthodox rules of physics apply to FE, with distances deduced using those orthodox rules. Can you see the contradiction there?

For UA, I've seen "Dark Energy...an unknown form of energy with an unknown origin" as the description. I suppose that is supposed to suffice as an explanation.

As far as star distance, there is a different parallax shift for all the stars, which shows us their distance as we observe them at 6 month intervals as the Earth revolves around the Sun.  In a FE model, is there an explanation for this? I don't see any in the FE wiki. 

Why try so hard to make FE work, using explanations as "unknown origin, yet to be discovered" as the go-to when it doesn't work out, when everything fits nice and neat in the RE model?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 29, 2019, 08:29:00 PM
You say it's an overdone discussion. The Flat Earth Society forums have been online for at least 12 years, and I imagine at some point every topic imaginable has been discussed.
Some more than others. The problem is when you come in with the attitude of 'I and I alone have asked this question no one has thought to answer!' rather than considering how utterly exhausting the cliches are for the regular FEers in the upper forums. Bishop doesn't post too much, I'm playing werewolf in the lower forums, even now you're not getting the people that normally debate it because why would they? What could they possibly have to gain from having the same discussion for the hundredth time for someone that's given every indication they'll just ignore answers provided?

Quote
Which one do you feel like believing or defending?

I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?

If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.
I'll 'defend' any model that has a response to this question, rather than outright changing the topic to source of acceleration. (That just takes you through dark energy and sometimes tachyons, and has nothing to do with constancy of acceleration).
The stars aren't 25 trillion miles away under any FE model, outside of the non-Euclidean. It doesn't work; the Sun has to be a nearby spotlight of some sort for it to have anything even approaching the motion we observe, and by parallax that tells us the stars need to be much closer. That's more rigorous, more intuitively is just the fact that under FET, the centre of the Earth is the centre of motion for, well, pretty much everything, so that indicates the Earth is much more significant than in RET, and other celestial bodies are much smaller and closer than RET states.

You can't have parallax shift in a flat Earth, especially if Earth is the center.  Yet, we still observe a shift in position of the stars....and they're all different.  Works great in the RE model...not so sure about the FE model.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 30, 2019, 02:27:57 AM
You are the one who started discussing my calibration activities.
No, I was the one talking in general, to point out it wasn't applicable for this experiment.

The manufacturer states explicitly and implicitly through its calibration procedure that a 500.00g mass should read 500.00g on the scale and that a deviation from that is an inaccuracy.
Again, only when being used to measure mass.
If you are using it to measure/compare weight, a 500 g mass nor reading 500 g is not necessarily an inaccuracy.
Claiming it is an inaccuracy just because it shows a different reading when it is expected to do so with a variation of gravity is just plain wrong.

As far as star distance, there is a different parallax shift for all the stars, which shows us their distance as we observe them at 6 month intervals as the Earth revolves around the Sun.  In a FE model, is there an explanation for this? I don't see any in the FE wiki.
As you said, parallax doesn't apply for the FE models.
So bringing it up isn't going to be useful for determining the shape of Earth.
The parallax discussed for FE is the difference in angle as you move around Earth.
For example, if you observe a star directly overhead, then someone roughly 5000 km away will observe it at roughly 45 degrees.
That shows they need to be 5000 km above your head.
Note: Using different distance will produce different numbers. If you instead used 10 000 km it would mean that the star needs to be basically touching your head.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 30, 2019, 04:23:28 PM
You can't have parallax shift in a flat Earth, especially if Earth is the center.  Yet, we still observe a shift in position of the stars....and they're all different.  Works great in the RE model...not so sure about the FE model.
...I mean, you can have a parallax shift no matter the shape of the object you're observing from, that's just what parallax is. You just get the same result as the Eratosphenes experiment, a lot of inconsistency in the net result from a FE that needs new principles to justify, but the undeniable fact that everything under FET has to be a whole lot closer is still there.
Also, free tips, if you actually care about getting answers, replacing bad arguments with completely different ones without even pausing for breath is not going to encourage any FEer to bother.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 30, 2019, 04:34:43 PM
You can't have parallax shift in a flat Earth, especially if Earth is the center.  Yet, we still observe a shift in position of the stars....and they're all different.  Works great in the RE model...not so sure about the FE model.
...I mean, you can have a parallax shift no matter the shape of the object you're observing from, that's just what parallax is. You just get the same result as the Eratosphenes experiment, a lot of inconsistency in the net result from a FE that needs new principles to justify, but the undeniable fact that everything under FET has to be a whole lot closer is still there.
Also, free tips, if you actually care about getting answers, replacing bad arguments with completely different ones without even pausing for breath is not going to encourage any FEer to bother.

You said the discussion was overdone, so I made additional points.

For example, I made the point that gravity gradient was too great near the Earth for a FE Earth model to work, since the stars were too far away.  So, you said that it would work because they were a lot closer, using parallax shift on a FE to define them.  The biggest problem I see with that is the FE model is supposedly geocentric.  Parallax shift measures the apparent shift in position of the stars at 6-month intervals when the earth revolves around the sun.  With a geocentric model, the stars would not shift, since the earth doesn't revolve around the sun in the FE model.  Do you have an explanation of parallax shift of the stars in the FET? 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 30, 2019, 05:15:33 PM
You said the discussion was overdone, so I made additional points.
In a thread dedicated to a totally different point. Like, this is hardly unique to this site, it's basic forum etiquette. You make a thread about A, switching subjects to something totally unrelated to avoid conceding is childish.
The stars do move under FET anyway, don't try to apply labels like geocentric or heliocentric, they were made for RET. Sure, the FE Earth is typically stationary (UA aside) but the Sun rotates above it, not around it, and ditto for the stars, and that's going to have pretty immediate consequences. Further free advice, rather than making claims like 'the stars would not shift' when I can't think of a single FEer who claims anything remotely like that, take a breath don't jump right to acting like you've refuted FET.
And that's about all I'm interested in saying, I'm tired and don't particularly want to waste time on a distraction.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 30, 2019, 05:40:27 PM
You said the discussion was overdone, so I made additional points.
In a thread dedicated to a totally different point. Like, this is hardly unique to this site, it's basic forum etiquette. You make a thread about A, switching subjects to something totally unrelated to avoid conceding is childish.
The stars do move under FET anyway, don't try to apply labels like geocentric or heliocentric, they were made for RET. Sure, the FE Earth is typically stationary (UA aside) but the Sun rotates above it, not around it, and ditto for the stars, and that's going to have pretty immediate consequences. Further free advice, rather than making claims like 'the stars would not shift' when I can't think of a single FEer who claims anything remotely like that, take a breath don't jump right to acting like you've refuted FET.
And that's about all I'm interested in saying, I'm tired and don't particularly want to waste time on a distraction.

Ok.  Maybe someone else has an answer. 

Jane seems to think I've taken us off topic somehow.  We started with acceleration is not constant on Earth.   

Tom posed that measurements of gravity can't be trusted because no one does them his way, in a vacuum.  That line was thoroughly discussed, and the point was made that whether or not his conditions were met, the variance would be far less than observations showed.

So, the other component of the original post was that decreasing gravity with altitude could not be accounted for in FE models.  The particulars behind this are what we've been discussing.  This is right in line with the main discussion. 

Jane is upset when I say the FE model doesn't account for this, but instead of providing a convincing point of view to debate it, she just claims it's merely too offensive of an attack to say FET doesn't account for it.  For anyone, if this is a debate forum, then debate it.  Don't just get offended like I insulted your family's honor.

The distance of the stars from Earth is a crucial point as to the effect of celestial gravitation, a claim supporting the phenomenon of decreasing weight measurements with altitude. 

So, I can make the argument that due to parallax shift, we can know the distance to the stars.  Basically, parallax shift is when our perspective when observing close stars compared to much more distant stars shows those closer stars of being in a different position in the sky.  Closer stars have a greater shift than more distant stars.  This parallax shift is observed at 6-month intervals when we are at opposite sides of the sun.  We are able to see varying displacement of stars in the sky, indicating their distance. 

My argument is that if the Earth is flat, then how can you account for this shift in the position of the stars?  This matters because it determines whether the stars have the ability to exert gravity on terrestrial objects, enough to cause a large gravity gradient.

If no FEer has an explanation for parallax shift with stars being on some kind of dome over the flat earth or something, it gives credibility to my whole point about gravity.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 30, 2019, 06:13:58 PM
Jane is upset when I say the FE model doesn't account for this, but instead of providing a convincing point of view to debate it, she just claims it's merely too offensive of an attack to say FET doesn't account for it.  For anyone, if this is a debate forum, then debate it.  Don't just get offended like I insulted your family's honor.
And now you're just straight-up lying. Great.
You do realise that on a web forum, people can just scroll back right? I pointed out complaining FEers weren't having the same discussion for the hundredth time with someone acting like you are now was stupid, and provided what seemed to be the most common UA answer, along with reminding you that under FET everything on a celestial level is smaller-scale and thus stars are closer than you were saying, along with a brief sketch of how you could justify that to yourself. At no point did I complain you made an argument, just pointed out you were acting like you'd made some kind of brand new point that had never been thought of before, and how that's just a dumb way to act.
You then decided to jettison all discussion of gravity to make a totally different argument based solely on a different application of parallax which doesn't matter. The conclusion of the stellar parallax argument as you're using it has nothing to do with distance to the stars. That would be why you're saying 'how can FET account for this?' rather than 'And this shows the distance would need to be ___' Like, some stars being further away than others literally does not matter in the slightest, just that they aren't the trillions figure you supplied and are theoretically close enough to exert some kind of gravitational force. Could have fun running the numbers on that actually, might get to that sometime.

But anyway, the distance to the Sun gives an indication of the distance to the things beyond it. If the Sun is smaller in actual size, that means it is closer, which means things seen beyond it are closer. That was all I said, and apparently you disagree with that, otherwise why the objection? And you explained parallax to me after I already explained it to you, but whatever, par for the course at this point.

Look, just admit when you make a mistake, in the long term it is way less embarrassing. You changed the topic, and you cannot just jam what you changed it into, into anything relevant to where we were originally. Free tips for basic usage of a forum volume 3.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 30, 2019, 07:21:11 PM
Jane is upset when I say the FE model doesn't account for this, but instead of providing a convincing point of view to debate it, she just claims it's merely too offensive of an attack to say FET doesn't account for it.  For anyone, if this is a debate forum, then debate it.  Don't just get offended like I insulted your family's honor.
And now you're just straight-up lying. Great.
You do realise that on a web forum, people can just scroll back right?
No lies here.  I made a valid argument about how FE doesn't account for it, but you claimed I'm not using good forum etiquette.  It is absolutely relevant.

Quote

 I pointed out complaining FEers weren't having the same discussion for the hundredth time with someone acting like you are now was stupid, and provided what seemed to be the most common UA answer, along with reminding you that under FET everything on a celestial level is smaller-scale and thus stars are closer than you were saying, along with a brief sketch of how you could justify that to yourself. At no point did I complain you made an argument, just pointed out you were acting like you'd made some kind of brand new point that had never been thought of before, and how that's just a dumb way to act.
You then decided to jettison all discussion of gravity to make a totally different argument based solely on a different application of parallax which doesn't matter. The conclusion of the stellar parallax argument as you're using it has nothing to do with distance to the stars. That would be why you're saying 'how can FET account for this?' rather than 'And this shows the distance would need to be ___' Like, some stars being further away than others literally does not matter in the slightest, just that they aren't the trillions figure you supplied and are theoretically close enough to exert some kind of gravitational force. Could have fun running the numbers on that actually, might get to that sometime.
If someone has made the point I'm asking for, where is it?

Parallax is HOW you determine the distance to the stars.  That's how we know the stars to be 25 trillion miles away.

Quote
But anyway, the distance to the Sun gives an indication of the distance to the things beyond it. If the Sun is smaller in actual size, that means it is closer, which means things seen beyond it are closer. That was all I said, and apparently you disagree with that, otherwise why the objection? And you explained parallax to me after I already explained it to you, but whatever, par for the course at this point.

You missing a very significant point about parallax.  The greater the shift, the farther away the stars are.  That's how we know the distance to the stars. 

The semi major axis of our orbit, roughly the radius of our orbit is used in a trigonometric function to calculate distance to the stars. 

With all this back and forth, you still have yet to explain how a FE model can explain the shift.  If the Sun floats over a flat earth, why would the stars shift back and forth every 6 months at decreasing amounts for stars at increasing distances. 

Quote
Look, just admit when you make a mistake, in the long term it is way less embarrassing. You changed the topic, and you cannot just jam what you changed it into, into anything relevant to where we were originally. Free tips for basic usage of a forum volume 3.

You continuing to assert that does not make it reality.

Quote
In a thread dedicated to a totally different point. Like, this is hardly unique to this site, it's basic forum etiquette. You make a thread about A, switching subjects to something totally unrelated to avoid conceding is childish.

Again, it is absolutely relevant to the topic.  Why won't you just answer the question?  Why try so hard to deflect?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 30, 2019, 07:28:11 PM
Quote
The semi major axis of our orbit, roughly the radius of our orbit is used in a trigonometric function to calculate distance to the stars. 
You don't see the issue here?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: mightyfletch on July 30, 2019, 08:51:13 PM
Quote
The semi major axis of our orbit, roughly the radius of our orbit is used in a trigonometric function to calculate distance to the stars. 
You don't see the issue here?

Right, that's the way it works in the RE model.  Of course you can't do that in a flat earth model.  So, what's the explanation in the FE model?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 31, 2019, 01:43:04 AM
In a thread dedicated to a totally different point.
No, you made them linked by bringing up celestial gravitation.
If you want to bring in something to allegedly answer an issue then problems with that answer will naturally become a part of the original issue.

You provided celestial gravitation as an alleged potential source of the variation.
He objected to that by saying the stars are too far away to produce that variation.
That means it is linked.
It is not a totally different point.
It is one thing to say his objections are wrong, but quite different to claim they are a completely different topic.

Right, that's the way it works in the RE model.  Of course you can't do that in a flat earth model.  So, what's the explanation in the FE model?
FE can't even explain why the stars appear in the locations they do, even when you ignore parallax.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 31, 2019, 04:29:00 AM
Again, it is absolutely relevant to the topic.  Why won't you just answer the question?  Why try so hard to deflect?
Because it doesn't matter. Best case scenario, some stars are trillions of miles away, some aren't, those that aren't get you celestial gravitation; this is by your own admission. This is an utter irrelevancy. All celestial gravitation needs is for stars to be closer; I outlined one intiuitive way to show that with parallax, but you don't need it in the slightest, you just need to accept that RET and FET are different. Ta-da.

Yep, parallax shift is one of a myriad different arguments relating to celestial observations that give inconsistent results under FET. Are you missing the fact I already said that? Again, it doesn't matter when it comes to this topic. Grow up.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 05:11:37 AM
Again, it is absolutely relevant to the topic.  Why won't you just answer the question?  Why try so hard to deflect?
Because it doesn't matter. Best case scenario, some stars are trillions of miles away, some aren't, those that aren't get you celestial gravitation; this is by your own admission. This is an utter irrelevancy. All celestial gravitation needs is for stars to be closer; I outlined one intiuitive way to show that with parallax, but you don't need it in the slightest, you just need to accept that RET and FET are different. Ta-da.

Yep, parallax shift is one of a myriad different arguments relating to celestial observations that give inconsistent results under FET. Are you missing the fact I already said that? Again, it doesn't matter when it comes to this topic. Grow up.
So celestial gravitation explains why "Acceleration is not constant on Earth" in the UA model of gravity on the flat earth.

The UA model relies on the Equivalence Principle:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
EQUIVALENCE AND THE FLAT EARTH
Upward Acceleration
In terms of a Flat Earth, the equivalence principle asserts that acceleration and gravitation are identical and indistinguishable from one another. An object being accelerated at 9.81 m/s^2 will feel all the same effects as if it were in a gravitational field in which acceleration due to gravity is 1g.
And
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
EINSTEIN'S "HAPPIEST THOUGHT"
In the wake of the theory of Special Relativity, Einstein was inspired by his own genius. His idea of physical laws being independent of the state of motion of the reference system they preside in led him to inquire of himself. "Is it conceivable that the principle of relativity also applies to systems that are accelerated relative to each other?" He had realized while writing his paper on special relativity that a person in gravitational free-fall cannot feel their own weight and it is almost as if gravity disappears altogether.

Galileo's epiphany that a person in uniform motion cannot be aware of that motion was conspicuously similar to his own. This led to what Einstein said was "the happiest thought of his life". Gravitation is not a force propagating through the universe and there is no instantaneous action at a distance. Gravity is not something that exists within space-time, but rather an intrinsic attribute of space-time. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent and it follows that kinematic acceleration and acceleration due to gravity are equivalent and indistinguishable from one another. "Gravity" is simply geometry.

Now the relevant point here is that the essence of the Equivalence Principle is that "Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent".

In other words, it seems quite inconsistent to use "celestial gravitation" to explain that "Acceleration is not constant on Earth" yet hold that earthly mass does not cause gravity (equivalent to kinematic acceleration) on earthly objects, including us.

Do you have any comment on this apparent inconsistency?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 31, 2019, 05:49:36 AM
In other words, it seems quite inconsistent to use "celestial gravitation" to explain that "Acceleration is not constant on Earth" yet hold that earthly mass does not cause gravity (equivalent to kinematic acceleration) on earthly objects, including us.

Do you have any comment on this apparent inconsistency?
Yes, I gave it ages back in this thread and I gave it the last dozen times you asked that question. A postulate for the purposes of a thought experiment is not a physical law. There isn't even an inconsistency in what you presented, inertial mass and gravitational mass both exist under RET and you have no issue with it there and, y'know, the equivalence principle was kinda designed for RET. FET simply points out that if you can't tell the difference, why say it's one and not the other? UA inherently makes no claims about the existence of non-existence of gravity as conventionally understood, that only comes up when people point out that if something the size of the Earth exerts gravity it should collapse into a ball, and that's the only point where FEers have to deny typical gravity and use a variation, if any.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2191412#msg2191412
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on July 31, 2019, 03:19:12 PM
All celestial gravitation needs is for stars to be closer
And in a particular location to produce the observed variation, even though there is no apparent build up of stars in these locations to produce the variations.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on July 31, 2019, 04:16:23 PM
His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration at the equator.
Because everyone's sick to death of discussing it because it is an absurdly overdone discussion to the point that even Rabinoz will bring it up, and he'd kick up a fuss if a FEer said the sky was blue. Trust me, acting cocky is doing you no favours.

You get some people that deny accurate measurement of the variation, which more often than not ties into completely different aspects of FET because they've rather unsurprisingly got different laws of physics to RET because, see again, FET, naturally there are things an RE understanding doesn't take into account. There are those that reject them just generally, mind you, but hey.
Then you get to celestial gravitation, which functions on the premise gravity is more akin to magnetism; only certain materials exert it, and affect many more than just those that exert it. Hence stars can exert it, while not enough of the Earth to turn it into a ball does. You can easily use a variation of that with materials within the Earth to justify variation in net force depending on distance from the pole, though offhand I couldn't tell you how many do that. Latitude is definitely the better argument there but, again, doesn't justify lying about no answer being given to altitude.
Celestial gravitation fits with the UA model neatly. Then you get onto non-UA models, which most users here accept, from denpressure to DET to AFET to non-Euclidean and... how much time do you have?


You say it's an overdone discussion. The Flat Earth Society forums have been online for at least 12 years, and I imagine at some point every topic imaginable has been discussed.  Well, that's why there is a debate forum.  I want to see someone debate it.

Indeed.  Everything has been rehashed over and over, but there’s some unwritten forum rule that says this you’ll be called out on it for this particular topic.

Mods and Jane will say it’s been answered already, but unlike all the many things that have been explained in excruciating detail (eg. how rockets work), the “answers” we’re given amount to little more than just saying “celestial gravitation”, “subterranean gravitation” and maybe one or two other throwaway excuses. 

Something above and/or below us pulls us a little bit up or down which accounts for all measured variations in apparent gravity.  That’s it.  I’ve seen no indication that any flat earther has made any attempt to even roughly work out how much these effects need to be balanced against UA to get close to observations.  We’re supposed to be happy with just the names.

It’s like if Einstein’s theories of Relativity simply said “it’s all relative, innit?”

It’s particularly odd because the whole point of universal acceleration was to get rid of gravity, as flat earthers don’t like it.  But after the obvious problem was pointed out, some decided that it was OK to have a little bit of gravity after all. 

More likely that the universal acceleration idea is just dead.  There’s maybe a couple of proponents left here and on the other site, nothing on YouTube it seems.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
In other words, it seems quite inconsistent to use "celestial gravitation" to explain that "Acceleration is not constant on Earth" yet hold that earthly mass does not cause gravity (equivalent to kinematic acceleration) on earthly objects, including us.

Do you have any comment on this apparent inconsistency?
Yes, I gave it ages back in this thread and I gave it the last dozen times you asked that question.
I know you did and you were wrong then!

Quote from: Jane
A postulate for the purposes of a thought experiment is not a physical law. There isn't even an inconsistency in what you presented, inertial mass and gravitational mass both exist under RET and you have no issue with it there and, y'know, the equivalence principle was kinda designed for RET.
Sure, "the equivalence principle was kinda designed for RET" but my point now as ever is that The Flat Earth Society's Wiki should not then claim Einstein's Equivalence Principle in support of its UA hypothesis.

Leave Einstein out of it!

Quote from: Jane
FET simply points out that if you can't tell the difference, why say it's one and not the other? UA inherently makes no claims about the existence of non-existence of gravity as conventionally understood,
But it implicitly does in claiming Einstein's Equivalence Principle in support of its UA hypothesis. Can't you understand that simply point?

Quote from: Jane
that only comes up when people point out that if something the size of the Earth exerts gravity it should collapse into a ball, and that's the only point where FEers have to deny typical gravity and use a variation, if any.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2191412#msg2191412
The Flat Earth Society's Wiki does claim that a justification for UA is Einstein's Equivalence Principle and that states that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.

Hence if earthly masses attract celestial masses (as they must for "Celestial Gravitation") then earthly masses must attract earthly masses.

So either you and The Flat Earth Society (in its Wiki) must face the fact that "Celestial Gravitation" implies "Earthly Gravitation" or discard Einstein's Equivalence Principle as support for UA.

You cannot have it both ways!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on July 31, 2019, 04:31:27 PM
Indeed.  Everything has been rehashed over and over, but there’s some unwritten forum rule that says this you’ll be called out on it for this particular topic.

Mods and Jane will say it’s been answered already, but unlike all the many things that have been explained in excruciating detail (eg. how rockets work), the “answers” we’re given amount to little more than just saying “celestial gravitation”, “subterranean gravitation” and maybe one or two other throwaway excuses. 

Something above and/or below us pulls us a little bit up or down which accounts for all measured variations in apparent gravity.  That’s it.  I’ve seen no indication that any flat earther has made any attempt to even roughly work out how much these effects need to be balanced against UA to get close to observations.  We’re supposed to be happy with just the names.

It’s like if Einstein’s theories of Relativity simply said “it’s all relative, innit?”

It’s particularly odd because the whole point of universal acceleration was to get rid of gravity, as flat earthers don’t like it.  But after the obvious problem was pointed out, some decided that it was OK to have a little bit of gravity after all. 

More likely that the universal acceleration idea is just dead.  There’s maybe a couple of proponents left here and on the other site, nothing on YouTube it seems.

When did it become unacceptable for someone to say "I think it works this way, but I don't have it all worked out just yet"?

The whole "If the Earth doesn't break into pieces then UA is dead" thing is a bad argument. Stating that it's a bad argument and that it gets brought up frequently is to be expected because, well, it's true, rather than pretending it's brand new and totally doesn't have a flawed premise and proclaiming "OMGWOW checkmate flat earthers!"
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on July 31, 2019, 04:41:23 PM
Indeed.  Everything has been rehashed over and over, but there’s some unwritten forum rule that says this you’ll be called out on it for this particular topic.
Far from just this particular topic. And again, if he was just asking it as a question I'd have no issue, but given he decided to act like he was adding soem brand new refutation that FEers are clearly avoiding because they can't answer it rather than because of sheer boredom... That's what I object to.

Quote from: Jane
FET simply points out that if you can't tell the difference, why say it's one and not the other? UA inherently makes no claims about the existence of non-existence of gravity as conventionally understood,
But it implicitly does in claiming Einstein's Equivalence Principle in support of its UA hypothesis. Can't you understand that simply point?
Um, no, because it's not a point. That's just... There isn't even an implication there. Einstein's Equivalence Principle does not contradict gravity. Are you missing the fact that the principle holds under RET as well? Does that contradict gravity? Does gravity not exist because it can be simulated by an acceleration? This is a god-awful argument even by your standards Rab. By your logic, the fact astronauts feel acceleration when they're in their rocket somehow disproves gravity. After all, that's only justified by EEP!
Like, seriously, what are you even complaining about? How do you get from 'you cannot detect a difference between being accelerated in an elevator and conventional gravity acting on a stationary elevator,' to 'gravity does not exist?'
The EEP is not a Flat Earth only principle. I am legitimately just baffled that you think you have a point, let alone some grand dramatic one worth resurrecting over and over.

UA gets used because conventional gravity doesn't explain how a flat Earth could be maintained and why it hasn't become a ball. That's it. The existence or non-existence of some modified version of gravity does not enter into it. I notice you completely avoided explaining how the hell you draw your conclusion. Wonder why.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 07:19:15 PM
UA gets used because conventional gravity doesn't explain how a flat Earth could be maintained and why it hasn't become a ball. That's it. The existence or non-existence of some modified version of gravity does not enter into it. I notice you completely avoided explaining how the hell you draw your conclusion. Wonder why.
My whole point, that you never face, is that Einstein's Equivalence Principle is simply Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass. There cannot be two classes of mass.

Hence if we have inertial mass (terrestrial objects in UA) and gravitational mass (the moon and stars in UA) then if the celestial  objects cause gravitation on the terrestrial objects then so must the earth (assuming it has mass) and terrestrial objects.

If the Flat Earth is going to claim Einstein's Equivalence Principle as support for UA then it must accept that there cannot be two classes of mass,  Gravitational Mass and Inertial Mass.

So the Flat Earth must choose to either ditch the claim to Einstein's Equivalence Principle as support for UA or ditch Celestial Gravitation.

I see no other option as logical.

Note that I'm not claiming that the FE cannot hypothesise either or both of UA or Celestial Gravitation, just the by hypothesising both they can no longer use Einstein's name to justify UA - take your pick.

That's my opinion and I have every right to hold a different opinion to yours!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 01, 2019, 04:24:56 AM
My whole point, that you never face, is that Einstein's Equivalence Principle is simply Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass. There cannot be two classes of mass.
Because that doesn't follow. It makes no claims about what causes gravity. It just... doesn't. Gravity could be caused by mass, rotten cheese, or exceedingly mischievous fairies and it wouldn't change one jot of what the EEP says. You could be in that elevator with a rock that has mass but exerts no gravity, and guess what would change? Nothing.
I'm not 'refusing to face' your point, you don't have a point. Seriously Rab, there is nothing even approaching the beginnings of an implication there.

Quote
Note that I'm not claiming that the FE cannot hypothesise either or both of UA or Celestial Gravitation, just the by hypothesising both they can no longer use Einstein's name to justify UA - take your pick.

That's my opinion and I have every right to hold a different opinion to yours!
Yeah, except when you phrase it as a statement of fact despite the fact it's utter rubbish. You're just getting pissy that they use Einstein's name out of some weird, weird sense of ownership. That's what the principle is called, it applies, get over yourself. Stop spamming this forum with your insistence that RET is composed of non-sequiturs and person-worship. It isn't.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 01, 2019, 05:41:35 AM
My whole point, that you never face, is that Einstein's Equivalence Principle is simply Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass. There cannot be two classes of mass.
Because that doesn't follow. It makes no claims about what causes gravity. It just... doesn't. Gravity could be caused by mass, rotten cheese, or exceedingly mischievous fairies and it wouldn't change one jot of what the EEP says. You could be in that elevator with a rock that has mass but exerts no gravity, and guess what would change? Nothing.
I'm not 'refusing to face' your point, you don't have a point. Seriously Rab, there is nothing even approaching the beginnings of an implication there.
Why then does the Wiki bother quoting the equivalence principle? The only reason is to add respectability to the hypothesis of the US.

OK, let them claim that "Gravity could be caused by mass, rotten cheese, or exceedingly mischievous fairies" and they would be laughed out of court!

Quote from: Jane
Quote
Note that I'm not claiming that the FE cannot hypothesise either or both of UA or Celestial Gravitation, just the by hypothesising both they can no longer use Einstein's name to justify UA - take your pick.

That's my opinion and I have every right to hold a different opinion to yours!
Yeah, except when you phrase it as a statement of fact despite the fact it's utter rubbish. You're just getting pissy that they use Einstein's name out of some weird, weird sense of ownership. That's what the principle is called, it applies, get over yourself. Stop spamming this forum with your insistence that RET is composed of non-sequiturs and person-worship. It isn't.
The Flat Earth Society brought Einstein's name into it and for no other reason than to add respectability to their hypothesis.
All I've been doing is point out an inconsistency.

But have it your own way, who cares?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 01, 2019, 06:10:03 AM
Why then does the Wiki bother quoting the equivalence principle? The only reason is to add respectability to the hypothesis of the US.
...Or because they are using it.
Once again. The equivalence principle says only that in certain situations, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. It makes no claims as to the origins of gravity. Are you paying attention to anything anyone else is saying, or are you just repeating nonsense for no other reason than you want it to be the case, so it must be so? What does that line even have to do with a word I said and what you quoted?
Oh, right, nothing. You can't defend your point because you don't have one. jesus christ Rab.
They quote EEP because it applies, you know it does. Don't be an idiot. Does Einstein get brought up because they want to get credibility from association? Eh, probably, but that doesn't mean it isn't the correct terminology to use. I think Einstein's built up enough good will that he can take his work being correctly applied to an incorrect model. There is no inconsistency. You haven't pointed out any inconsistency, you just got mad they said 'Einstein.' Grow. Up.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 01, 2019, 06:22:15 AM
Why then does the Wiki bother quoting the equivalence principle? The only reason is to add respectability to the hypothesis of the US.
...Or because they are using it.
Once again. The equivalence principle says only that in certain situations, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable.
No, it says that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.
Quote
The Weak Principle of Equivalence states all the laws of motion for freely falling particles are the same as in an unaccelerated reference frame. That is the Weak Equivalence Principle is a restatement of the equality of gravitational and inertial mass.
But you can postulate that celestial gravitation is caused by space fairies if you like, who cares? Not I!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 01, 2019, 06:40:58 AM
Why then does the Wiki bother quoting the equivalence principle? The only reason is to add respectability to the hypothesis of the US.
...Or because they are using it.
Once again. The equivalence principle says only that in certain situations, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable.
No, it says that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.
Quote
The Weak Principle of Equivalence states all the laws of motion for freely falling particles are the same as in an unaccelerated reference frame. That is the Weak Equivalence Principle is a restatement of the equality of gravitational and inertial mass.
But you can postulate that celestial gravitation is caused by space fairies if you like, who cares? Not I!
Apparently you do given you kicked up all this fuss over it.
So, again, how does that make any claims about what does and doesn't exert gravity? Please, just answer a straight question already. And if you're not going to, stop wasting everybody's time with this kind of rubbish.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on August 01, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
But that's not part of this experiment.
But it is very relevant to the topic, which happens to be: "Acceleration is not constant on Earth"!
And it is very relevant to at least the first part of:
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

You seem to be very insistent on policing users regarding what the topic is when it deviates from what you want to talk about, but have no problem in going off topic if you want to prattle on about something.

mightyfletch commented:

Note, the scale is calibrated in the experiment.

and my subsequent notes all referred to that comment and that experiment.

So, as a first step, do you accept that "Acceleration is not constant on Earth"? Let's establish that first and then you can explain how that can be explained on a flat earth.

As a first step towards what? Listening to you go on and on when you appear to be under a terrible misconception? And when you seem to make knee-jerk assumptions and jump to unwarranted conclusions? And also repeat things over and over that you heard and would like to be true, but never bothered to check?

Doesn't sound very productive.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 01, 2019, 10:32:48 AM
Why then does the Wiki bother quoting the equivalence principle? The only reason is to add respectability to the hypothesis of the US.
...Or because they are using it.
Once again. The equivalence principle says only that in certain situations, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable.
No, it says that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.
Quote
The Weak Principle of Equivalence states all the laws of motion for freely falling particles are the same as in an unaccelerated reference frame. That is the Weak Equivalence Principle is a restatement of the equality of gravitational and inertial mass.
But you can postulate that celestial gravitation is caused by space fairies if you like, who cares? Not I!
Apparently you do given you kicked up all this fuss over it.
So, again, how does that make any claims about what does and doesn't exert gravity? Please, just answer a straight question already. And if you're not going to, stop wasting everybody's time with this kind of rubbish.

Mass exerts gravity. 

Unlike flat earthers, Einstein didn’t just pull a cause out of his arse.  His equations work with mass.  Nothing else.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 01, 2019, 11:58:41 AM
Mass exerts gravity. 

Unlike flat earthers, Einstein didn’t just pull a cause out of his arse.  His equations work with mass.  Nothing else.
Mm-hmm, great. What part of these equations demonstrate the fact that masses (let alone all masses) exert it, rather than just being affected by it? Acceleration depends on mass too, but mass doesn't inherently exert acceleration.
You are massively misunderstanding what the equivalence principle is. Yes, mass exerts gravity, but the justification behind that is not part of EEP.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 01, 2019, 04:12:06 PM
Mass exerts gravity. 

Unlike flat earthers, Einstein didn’t just pull a cause out of his arse.  His equations work with mass.  Nothing else.
Mm-hmm, great. What part of these equations demonstrate the fact that masses (let alone all masses) exert it, rather than just being affected by it? Acceleration depends on mass too, but mass doesn't inherently exert acceleration.
You are massively misunderstanding what the equivalence principle is. Yes, mass exerts gravity, but the justification behind that is not part of EEP.

Sorry, did I say mass?  Mass energy momentum, is more accurate.

I’m afraid the answer is above my pay grade.  Just watched an “Einstein field equation for beginners” that nearly melted my brain.

Maybe you’ll have more luck?



I’m fine with the fact that there are smarter people in the world than me to work this stuff out.  And apparently it does work.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 04:18:31 PM
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 01, 2019, 04:20:11 PM
I’m fine with the fact that there are smarter people in the world than me to work this stuff out.  And apparently it does work.
Yes. It does. But that wasn't the equivalence principle. EEP isn't the sum total of all of Einstein's work and the Theory of Relativity, it is summed up by one singular analogy to demonstrate one lone principle and makes no claims about the origins of gravity. Hence my objection to Rab.
I'm a REer, Rab's just a joke.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 04:34:13 PM
What experiments are there that gravity weakens with altitude?

Even mainstream science acknowledges gravity's uniformity. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and NASA says that gravity is a uniform gravitational field when tested at an altitude of 6200 miles. A high altitude clock was compared with a clock on the surface, confirming the Equivalence Principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

" Gravity Probe A (GP-A) was a space-based experiment to test the equivalence principle, a feature of Einstein's theory of relativity. It was performed jointly by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The experiment sent a hydrogen maser, a highly accurate frequency standard, into space to measure with high precision the rate at which time passes in a weaker gravitational field.

...The experiment was a test of a major fallout of Einstein's general relativity, the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field.

The probe was launched on June 18, 1976 from the NASA-Wallops Flight Center in Wallops Island, Virginia. The probe was carried via a Scout rocket, and attained a height of 10,000 km (6,200 mi), while remaining in space for 1 hour and 55 minutes, as intended. It returned to Earth by splashing down into the Atlantic Ocean.

The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field. "
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on August 01, 2019, 04:38:38 PM
So space now exists?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Platonius21 on August 01, 2019, 06:15:29 PM
So space now exists?
Yeah. Woops!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on August 01, 2019, 07:16:47 PM
Tom's trolling is particularly weak today.

What experiments are there that gravity weakens with altitude?

It has progressed from "experiment" to a standard tool that is used in a number of fields, and is the basis for a number of companies that manufacture sensors based on the principle, but go ahead and call it an experiment if you want. As an example, here is a reference. Pages 4-5 detail gravitational change with elevation.

https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Guide-High-Precision-Land-Gravimeter-Surveys.pdf


Even mainstream science acknowledges gravity's uniformity. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and NASA says that gravity is a uniform gravitational field when tested at an altitude of 6200 miles.

Particularly lame troll. Uniform at a height. Not uniform from ground level to that height. Please, troll better.


A high altitude clock was compared with a clock on the surface, confirming the Equivalence Principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

" Gravity Probe A (GP-A) was a space-based experiment to test the equivalence principle, a feature of Einstein's theory of relativity. It was performed jointly by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The experiment sent a hydrogen maser, a highly accurate frequency standard, into space to measure with high precision the rate at which time passes in a weaker gravitational field.

...The experiment was a test of a major fallout of Einstein's general relativity, the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field.

The probe was launched on June 18, 1976 from the NASA-Wallops Flight Center in Wallops Island, Virginia. The probe was carried via a Scout rocket, and attained a height of 10,000 km (6,200 mi), while remaining in space for 1 hour and 55 minutes, as intended. It returned to Earth by splashing down into the Atlantic Ocean.

The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field. "

And then all the slavish devotion to NASA's work when he wants to use it to support an argument.

Poor Tom. It must be tiring for you to keep arguing in this dishonest and underhanded way.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 01, 2019, 08:21:35 PM
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
I don't know about how any "smart people" might explain how gravity "knows" but I'd try to explain it this way.

In Newtonian gravitation the force due to gravity is given by: force = g × mass but acceleration = force/mass .
So acceleration = (g × mass)/mass and the mass cancels. Hence for all unconstrained objects the acceleration = g.
Hence, unless constrained for example by air-resistance, the feather and the bowling ball will accelerate at the same rate.

Einstein recognised that objects in free-fall experience no force and after some years of work this lead to his Theory of General Relativity.

The end result is that any force due to gravitation is an inertial force as a result of preventing an object from following a geodesic in curved spacetime, where a geodesic in curved spacetime is the equivalent of a straight line in Euclidean (non-curved) space.

But there are better people than I at explaining GR.
There's little point in most people bothering with GR because in most calculations Newtonian Laws are perfectly adequate.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 08:34:12 PM
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
I don't know about how any "smart people" might explain how gravity "knows" but I'd try to explain it this way.

In Newtonian gravitation the force due to gravity is given by: force = g × mass but acceleration = force/mass .
So acceleration = (g × mass)/mass and the mass cancels. Hence for all unconstrained objects the acceleration = g.
Hence, unless constrained for example by air-resistance, the feather and the bowling ball will accelerate at the same rate.

Einstein recognised that objects in free-fall experience no force and after some years of work this lead to his Theory of General Relativity.

The end result is that any force due to gravitation is an inertial force as a result of preventing an object from following a geodesic in curved spacetime, where a geodesic in curved spacetime is the equivalent of a straight line in Euclidean (non-curved) space.

But there are better people than I at explaining GR.
There's little point in most people bothering with GR because in most calculations Newtonian Laws are perfectly adequate.

And how does gravity know that it needs to impart more energy on an elephant vs a book to get them to accelerate at the same rate and nullify inertial resistance?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 08:39:27 PM
Quote
It has progressed from "experiment" to a standard tool that is used in a number of fields, and is the basis for a number of companies that manufacture sensors based on the principle, but go ahead and call it an experiment if you want. As an example, here is a reference. Pages 4-5 detail gravitational change with elevation.

https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Guide-High-Precision-Land-Gravimeter-Surveys.pdf

Gravimeters = Seismometers

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Quote
Particularly lame troll. Uniform at a height. Not uniform from ground level to that height. Please, troll better.

Incorrect. They compared it to a clock on the ground to validate the Equivalence Principle. Please quote what you think is happening.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 01, 2019, 08:49:45 PM
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
I don't know about how any "smart people" might explain how gravity "knows" but I'd try to explain it this way.

In Newtonian gravitation the force due to gravity is given by: force = g × mass but acceleration = force/mass .
So acceleration = (g × mass)/mass and the mass cancels. Hence for all unconstrained objects the acceleration = g.
Hence, unless constrained for example by air-resistance, the feather and the bowling ball will accelerate at the same rate.

Einstein recognised that objects in free-fall experience no force and after some years of work this lead to his Theory of General Relativity.

The end result is that any force due to gravitation is an inertial force as a result of preventing an object from following a geodesic in curved spacetime, where a geodesic in curved spacetime is the equivalent of a straight line in Euclidean (non-curved) space.

But there are better people than I at explaining GR.
There's little point in most people bothering with GR because in most calculations Newtonian Laws are perfectly adequate.

And how does gravity know that it needs to impart more energy on an elephant vs a book to get them to accelerate at the same rate and nullify inertial resistance?
What do you mean by your "inertial resistance"? As far as I'm concerned in linear motion "inertial resistance" is simply "mass".

So in Newtonian gravitation the force due to gravity is given by: force = g × mass but acceleration = force/mass .
And as before acceleration = (g × mass)/mass and the mass cancels. Hence for all unconstrained objects the acceleration = g.
Hence the elephant, having a much greater mass than the book, experiences a proportionally greater force so will accelerate at the same rate.

Gravitation is not a thing to "know something" but is a field analogous to an electric field that exerts a force proportional to charge.
But this analogy is only superficial otherwise gravitation (or GR) might be more easily reconciled with quantum theory.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 09:03:38 PM
What do you mean by your "inertial resistance"? As far as I'm concerned in linear motion "inertial resistance" is simply "mass".

Any body which moves through space is subject to inertial resistance. This is why it is much easier to push a marble vs a car set in neutral. It takes more energy to move a car.

In order for a car and a marble to be pulled or pushed through space at the same rate energy must be imparted. I'm asking how gravity knows to impart an exact amount of energy so that they move at the same rate through space.

Pretty ad-hoc and coincidental that everything should behave as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Photons, which are mass-less, are also affected:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec07.html

Quote
although a simple and common sense assumption, the equivalence principle has strange consequences
such as, photons will be affected by gravity, even though they have zero mass.

(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/elevator_photon.gif)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 01, 2019, 09:24:57 PM
Quote
It has progressed from "experiment" to a standard tool that is used in a number of fields, and is the basis for a number of companies that manufacture sensors based on the principle, but go ahead and call it an experiment if you want. As an example, here is a reference. Pages 4-5 detail gravitational change with elevation.

https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Guide-High-Precision-Land-Gravimeter-Surveys.pdf

Gravimeters = Seismometers

No, gravimeters are not seismometers.
Sure, some instruments could be adapted to be used as either relative gravimeters or as seismometers.

A precision gravimeter must be isolated from seismic effects but a seismometer must be connected to the earth to measure them.

In the design of precision gravimeters great steps are taken to isolate the gravimeters from seismic effects.
For example
Quote
Gravimeters: The Absolute Gravimeter FG5 (http://www.ecgs.lu/wulg/gravimeters/)
The FG5 operates by using the free-fall method. An object is dropped inside a vacuum chamber (called the dropping chamber). The descent of the freely-falling object is monitored very accurately using a laser interferometer. The free-fall trajectory of the dropped object is referenced to a very stable active-spring system called a Superspring. The Superspring provides seismic-isolation for the reference optic to improve the noise performance of the FG5.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Macarios on August 01, 2019, 09:34:55 PM
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

To push more mass you need more force.
But more mass exactly gives the more force.

"What is heavier: 1 kg of feather or 1 kg of iron?"

If the feather is 1 gram and the bowling ball 5 kg, each of those 5000 grams falls with the same acceleration as the gram of the feather.

They don't slow down or speed up each other.
The gravitational force on the ball is 5000 times stronger than the gravitational force on the feather.
(At the same spot, ofcourse.)

g = F / m
F = G M m / d2
g = (G M m / d2) / m
g = G M / d2

As you can see, "g" doesn't depend on "m".
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 09:49:18 PM
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

To push more mass you need more force.
But more mass exactly gives the more force.


There is no reason why this should be the case. Inertia is independent from gravity. Bodies have the same inertial resistance in a weightless environment. The amount of inertial resistance a body has bears no relationship to the gravity enivonment it is in.

On RE Jupiter the laws of inertia (inertial mass) would remain the same and the laws of gravity (gravitational mass) would be far greater. Why should it exactly equal out on Earth?

See:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5dryXCWR7EIC&lpg=PA148&ots=r75r_jl-VB&dq=%22equivalence%20principle%22%20%22remarkable%20coincidence%22&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q=%22equivalence%20principle%22%20%22remarkable%20coincidence%22&f=false

Quote
This equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses (which allows us to refer simply to 'the mass'), is a truly remarkable coincidence in the Newtonian theory. In this theory there is no a-priori reason why the quantity that determines the magnitude of the gravitational force on the particle should equal the quantity that determines the particle's 'resistance' to an applied force in general.

http://cosmoschool2018.oa.uj.edu.pl/pdfs/day3/CosmoSchool_Cracow2018_PiorkowskaKurpas.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/jWr9ir9.png)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 09:52:03 PM
Quote
It has progressed from "experiment" to a standard tool that is used in a number of fields, and is the basis for a number of companies that manufacture sensors based on the principle, but go ahead and call it an experiment if you want. As an example, here is a reference. Pages 4-5 detail gravitational change with elevation.

https://scintrexltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Guide-High-Precision-Land-Gravimeter-Surveys.pdf

Gravimeters = Seismometers

No, gravimeters are not seismometers.
Sure, some instruments could be adapted to be used as either relative gravimeters or as seismometers.

A precision gravimeter must be isolated from seismic effects but a seismometer must be connected to the earth to measure them.

In the design of precision gravimeters great steps are taken to isolate the gravimeters from seismic effects.
For example
Quote
Gravimeters: The Absolute Gravimeter FG5 (http://www.ecgs.lu/wulg/gravimeters/)
The FG5 operates by using the free-fall method. An object is dropped inside a vacuum chamber (called the dropping chamber). The descent of the freely-falling object is monitored very accurately using a laser interferometer. The free-fall trajectory of the dropped object is referenced to a very stable active-spring system called a Superspring. The Superspring provides seismic-isolation for the reference optic to improve the noise performance of the FG5.


Several sources in the link I provided say directly that Gravimeters are Seismometers. Seismometers can be used as Gravimeters. The gravity anomalies match up with the seismic zones.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Seismic isolation is used because not all bands are needed. The theory is based on a theory of gravity waves and infragravity waves in certain frequencies.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Macarios on August 01, 2019, 10:39:48 PM
There is no reason why this should be the case. Inertia is independent from gravity. Bodies have the same inertial resistance in a weightless environment. The amount of inertial resistance a body has bears no relationship to the gravity enivonment it is in.

Inertia is independent from gravity, but the free fall isn't.
What "overcomes" the inertial resistance here is the gravitational force which directly depends on the mass of the object.

What will fall faster:
- 2 bricks of 1 kg each, next to each other,
- 2 bricks of 1 kg each, glued to each other?

Why wouldn't two glued bricks fall faster than each of the independent bricks?
Because as the inertial resistance grows twice, the gravitational force also grows twice.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 11:07:06 PM
Inertia and gravity are indepent from each other and it is surprising that they should equal out on Earth. Einstein felt that it was an unacceptable coincidence. Read:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039368185900020

" IN OCTOBER and November 1907, just over two years after the completion of his special theory of relativity, Einstein made the breakthrough that set him on the path to the general theory of relativity. Whilst preparing a review article on his new special theory of relativity, he became convinced that the key to the extension of the principle of relativity to accelerated motion lay in the remarkable and unexplained empirical coincidence of the equality of inertial and gravitational masses. To interpret and exploit this coincidence, he introduced a new and powerful physical principle, soon to be called the ‘principle of equivalence,’ upon which his search for a general theory of relativity would be based. "

The most natural answer to the observed effects is that gravity is like being on a surface that is accelerating upwards. It was Einstein's first epiphany and theory on gravity.

Eight years after coming up with the Equivalence Principle he adopts it to the Round Earth Theory with GR. "Falling" is an illusion in this theory. Things don't "fall" anymore -- an abolished concept  Special and highly complicated space-time bending simply accelerates the surface of the Earth into objects to simulate an upwardly accelerating Earth.

General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false

  “ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on August 01, 2019, 11:30:04 PM
What do you mean by your "inertial resistance"? As far as I'm concerned in linear motion "inertial resistance" is simply "mass".

Any body which moves through space is subject to inertial resistance. This is why it is much easier to push a marble vs a car set in neutral. It takes more energy to move a car.

In order for a car and a marble to be pulled or pushed through space at the same rate energy must be imparted. I'm asking how gravity knows to impart an exact amount of energy so that they move at the same rate through space.

Pretty ad-hoc and coincidental that everything should behave as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Photons, which are mass-less, are also affected:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec07.html

Quote
although a simple and common sense assumption, the equivalence principle has strange consequences
such as, photons will be affected by gravity, even though they have zero mass.

(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/elevator_photon.gif)

now THAT is a very good point.
I'll assume you will never bring up UA again, then?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2019, 11:38:30 PM
now THAT is a very good point.
I'll assume you will never bring up UA again, then?

There haven't been any horizontal tests (impractical), only vertical tests. The falling photon in an elevator is a popular EP thought experiment and generally refers to the optical tests of the Equivalence Principle, Pound-Rebka: https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#The_Pound.E2.80.93Rebka_Experiment
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 02, 2019, 01:17:14 AM
Inertia and gravity are indepent from each other and it is surprising that they should equal out on Earth. Einstein felt that it was an unacceptable coincidence. Read:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039368185900020
Here is a version that's easier to read but it's a pdf file that you might have to download: What was Einstein's Principle of Equivalence? by JOHN NORTON (http://pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/ProfE_re-set.pdf) and all of that can be downloaded for free.
And it is worth reading the rest of: Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity by John D. Norton (https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html)
Especially the sections: The Happiest Thought of My Life (https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html#L1271), The Principle of Equivalence (https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html#L1318) and Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle") (https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html#L4669).

But I cannot find where he said "felt that it was an unacceptable coincidence"
All I see is
Quote
While preparing a review article on his new special theory of relativity, he became convinced that the key to the extension of the principle of relativity to accelerated motion lay in the remarkable and unexplained empirical coincidence of the equality of inertial and gravitational masses.
"Unacceptable coincidence" is not the same as "remarkable and unexplained empirical coincidence".

Why would you change his words?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
" IN OCTOBER and November 1907, just over two years after the completion of his special theory of relativity, Einstein made the breakthrough that set him on the path to the general theory of relativity. Whilst preparing a review article on his new special theory of relativity, he became convinced that the key to the extension of the principle of relativity to accelerated motion lay in the remarkable and unexplained empirical coincidence of the equality of inertial and gravitational masses. To interpret and exploit this coincidence, he introduced a new and powerful physical principle, soon to be called the ‘principle of equivalence,’ upon which his search for a general theory of relativity would be based. "

The most natural answer to the observed effects is that the gravity is like being on a surface that is accelerating upwards. It was Einstein's first epiphany and theory on gravity.

Eight years after coming up with the Equivalence Principle he adopts it to the Round Earth Theory with GR. "Falling" is an illusion in this theory. Things don't "fall" anymore -- an abolished concept  Special and highly complicated space-time bending simply accelerates the surface of the Earth into objects to simulate an upwardly accelerating Earth.
Where do you get "simply accelerates the surface of the Earth into objects to simulate an upwardly accelerating Earth"?
In Einstein's GR an accelerating (meaning non-inertial) object is one prevented from following the geodesic in spacetime.
That acceleration is not in 3D space but in 4D spacetime and the object could quite feasibly be stationary in our usual 3D space.

Quote
More specifically, Einstein took the case of special relativity without gravitation. He now imagined a uniformly accelerated observer, in relation to whom all free objects would accelerate. That state of space found by the observer, Einstein asserted in his principle of equivalence, is a homogeneous gravitational field. In this case, uniform acceleration and homogeneous gravitation are equivalent.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false

  “ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually thing. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”
But what if Galileo's twin was doing exactly the same thing in Waitangi, Chatham Islands, New Zealand, the antipodes of Pisa, Tuscany, Italy?

Both could not be physically accelerating upward at the same time and I doubt that even you could have convinced Albert Einstein that the earth was flat.

So he developed his Theory of General Relativity that, in the low-velocity weak gravitation limit, reduces to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
Quote
One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 02, 2019, 01:26:57 AM
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
From a simple view, the same way the electrostatic force "knows" to impart the necessary amount of energy on each charged object to accelerate them through space at a rate based upon their charge and inertial mass.
The only way in which gravity is different is that the "charge" is the same as the inertial mass.

The more complex understanding is that space-time itself is bent such that objects merely follow geodesics through space time.

Even mainstream science acknowledges gravity's uniformity.
No it doesn't.
Cherry picking parts of the article don't help your case.
No where in that article does it indicate that gravity is uniform across Earth.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 02, 2019, 06:40:59 AM
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
I don't know about how any "smart people" might explain how gravity "knows" but I'd try to explain it this way.

In Newtonian gravitation the force due to gravity is given by: force = g × mass but acceleration = force/mass .
So acceleration = (g × mass)/mass and the mass cancels. Hence for all unconstrained objects the acceleration = g.
Hence, unless constrained for example by air-resistance, the feather and the bowling ball will accelerate at the same rate.

Einstein recognised that objects in free-fall experience no force and after some years of work this lead to his Theory of General Relativity.

The end result is that any force due to gravitation is an inertial force as a result of preventing an object from following a geodesic in curved spacetime, where a geodesic in curved spacetime is the equivalent of a straight line in Euclidean (non-curved) space.

But there are better people than I at explaining GR.
There's little point in most people bothering with GR because in most calculations Newtonian Laws are perfectly adequate.

And how does gravity know that it needs to impart more energy on an elephant vs a book to get them to accelerate at the same rate and nullify inertial resistance?

Gravity does’t impart energy. Rather spacetime is bent. Objects then follow the bent spacetime.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 02, 2019, 06:48:15 AM
Evidence gravity varies by altitude.

http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Galileo_satellites_prove_Einstein_s_Relativity_Theory_to_highest_accuracy_yet

Video summary.



Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 02, 2019, 11:38:19 AM
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
From a simple view, the same way the electrostatic force "knows" to impart the necessary amount of energy on each charged object to accelerate them through space at a rate based upon their charge and inertial mass.
The only way in which gravity is different is that the "charge" is the same as the inertial mass.

The more complex understanding is that space-time itself is bent such that objects merely follow geodesics through space time.
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?

I'll save you some time. Magic. At some point all discussions of round earth gravity must rely on what is essentially magic for them to function. You will find any unbounded recursion into how gravity works eventually ends up with a hearty shrug.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on August 02, 2019, 11:51:48 AM
The mechanism unknown but repeatibly measureable.
Refraction and fall rate and eclispes and other such measureable and predictable things.

Unlike fe sunsets, winter-summer, how big australia is, rises to eye level, looks flat, how big antartica is, star trails, ice walls, nasa's ability to keep a 100,000yr old secret...
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 02, 2019, 12:38:45 PM

How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?

I'll save you some time. Magic. At some point all discussions of round earth gravity must rely on what is essentially magic for them to function. You will find any unbounded recursion into how gravity works eventually ends up with a hearty shrug.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.

Which flat earth “models” rely less on unexplained magics than the heliocentric model?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Macarios on August 02, 2019, 12:49:43 PM
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
From a simple view, the same way the electrostatic force "knows" to impart the necessary amount of energy on each charged object to accelerate them through space at a rate based upon their charge and inertial mass.
The only way in which gravity is different is that the "charge" is the same as the inertial mass.

The more complex understanding is that space-time itself is bent such that objects merely follow geodesics through space time.
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?

I'll save you some time. Magic. At some point all discussions of round earth gravity must rely on what is essentially magic for them to function. You will find any unbounded recursion into how gravity works eventually ends up with a hearty shrug.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.

Not "to a vacuum".
It is "through a vacuum".

The same question goes for electrostatic field.
The same question goes for magnetic field.

Which Flat model "avoids this 'nonsense' " ? :)

Once we comprehend the true meaning of "fourth dimension" (and the higher ones)
we will be able to observe and understand some things we can't grasp now.
In those higher dimensions the Earth could have shape that we don't even know exists...

Reverting the knowledge 3000 years backwards and masking progress won't help.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 02, 2019, 02:26:04 PM
Evidence gravity varies by altitude.

http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Galileo_satellites_prove_Einstein_s_Relativity_Theory_to_highest_accuracy_yet

Video summary.



I don't see anything about that. Quote it.

The abstract from the GREAT experiment just says that they improved on the Equivalence Principle measurement of Gravity Probe A rocket:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300271

" We present the result of the analysis of the GREAT (Galileo gravitational Redshift test with Eccentric sATellites) experiment. An elliptic orbit induces a periodic modulation of the fractional frequency difference between a ground clock and the satellite clock, partly due to the gravitational redshift, while the good stability of Galileo clocks allows one to test this periodic modulation to a high level of accuracy. GSAT0201 and GSAT0202, with their large eccentricity and on-board H-maser clocks, are perfect candidates to perform this test. Satellite laser ranging data allows us to partly decorrelate the orbit perturbations from the clock errors. By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years. "
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 02, 2019, 03:09:14 PM
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?
How does the electrostatic force communicate this information?
The same issues apply for all the fundamental forces.
With all fundamental forces there is always another question that can be asked any time an actual explanation is provided.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.
BS.
Everything has this "nonsense".
FE cannot explain what is causing the acceleration of Earth.
But unlike gravity, there is no justification for this magically acceleration being a fundamental force.

So the main difference is that FE resorts to this nonsense much earlier.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 02, 2019, 03:22:27 PM
Evidence gravity varies by altitude.

http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Galileo_satellites_prove_Einstein_s_Relativity_Theory_to_highest_accuracy_yet

Video summary.



I don't see anything about that. Quote it.

The abstract from the GREAT experiment just says that they improved on the Equivalence Principle measurement of Gravity Probe A rocket:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300271

" We present the result of the analysis of the GREAT (Galileo gravitational Redshift test with Eccentric sATellites) experiment. An elliptic orbit induces a periodic modulation of the fractional frequency difference between a ground clock and the satellite clock, partly due to the gravitational redshift, while the good stability of Galileo clocks allows one to test this periodic modulation to a high level of accuracy. GSAT0201 and GSAT0202, with their large eccentricity and on-board H-maser clocks, are perfect candidates to perform this test. Satellite laser ranging data allows us to partly decorrelate the orbit perturbations from the clock errors. By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years. "

It’s right there in the abstract.

The video explains it starting around 2:15 mark. Overall the distance from apogee to perigee is 9,000 km. So the difference in gravitation can be seen in the onboard clock.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 02, 2019, 04:19:48 PM
Evidence gravity varies by altitude.

http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Galileo_satellites_prove_Einstein_s_Relativity_Theory_to_highest_accuracy_yet

Video summary.



I don't see anything about that. Quote it.

The abstract from the GREAT experiment just says that they improved on the Equivalence Principle measurement of Gravity Probe A rocket:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300271

" We present the result of the analysis of the GREAT (Galileo gravitational Redshift test with Eccentric sATellites) experiment. An elliptic orbit induces a periodic modulation of the fractional frequency difference between a ground clock and the satellite clock, partly due to the gravitational redshift, while the good stability of Galileo clocks allows one to test this periodic modulation to a high level of accuracy. GSAT0201 and GSAT0202, with their large eccentricity and on-board H-maser clocks, are perfect candidates to perform this test. Satellite laser ranging data allows us to partly decorrelate the orbit perturbations from the clock errors. By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years. "

It’s right there in the abstract.

The video explains it starting around 2:15 mark. Overall the distance from apogee to perigee is 9,000 km. So the difference in gravitation can be seen in the onboard clock.

What you referenced says that the clocks were mismatched, but that's expected in Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The Gravity Probe A rocket experiment is a verification of the Equivalence Principle which says that clocks at the bottom will tick slower than clocks at the top. The upwards acceleration through space causes one at a lower position to perceive the signals from the higher clock at a faster and faster rate, as the lower position is accelerating into that broadcaster information. The Gravity Probe A experiment found that the clocks at two extreme positions were mismatched exactly how Einstein predicts in his Equivalence Principle of upwards acceleration.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Gravitational_Time_Dilation

Quote
The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity
By Fred C. Adams, PhD and Prof. Greg Laughlin

On p.116 of The Five Ages of the Universe (Archive), its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an upwardly accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

  “ however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner. ”

The authors explain that time dilation should be a natural consequence in an upwardly accelerating rocket, and acknowledge that its application to gravity on earth is "strange" and "bizarre".

Time dilation at different altitudes has been confirmed in the laboratory. See: Optical Clocks and Relativity (Archive)

If this other experiment just improved on precision of the Gravity Probe A experiment, which claimed to confirm the Equivalence Principle when comparing a high altitude clock and a low altitude clock, then it did nothing to contradict the Equivalence Principle and only confirmed it. Show us from the official documentation on this experiment where it contradicts the Equivalence Principle of uniform upwards acceleration.

From the Gravity Probe A wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

Quote
The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that deeper in the gravity well the time flows slower,[4] and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million.

Clocks mismatched in the way Einstein predicts with his Equivalence Principle.

From the GREAT abstract:

Quote
By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years.

It says it just improved Gravity Probe A's results. Verification of the Equivalence Principle.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 02, 2019, 04:55:27 PM
The authors of the paper are in the video. They claim the satellite provided evidence for general relativity by using gravitational redshift brought on by changes in gravitation from changes in altitude.
The equivalence principal is part of GR. Confirming the EP would confirm GR. The author states “We confirmed general relativity.” 

You wanted evidence for gravitational changes by altitude, you got it.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on August 03, 2019, 09:12:25 AM
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/6838955/23/images/8/Einstein%E2%80%99s+Gravity+Gravitational+fields+do+not+put+forces+on+objects.+Instead+they+cause+space-time+to+bend..jpg)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 03, 2019, 01:00:00 PM
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/6838955/23/images/8/Einstein%E2%80%99s+Gravity+Gravitational+fields+do+not+put+forces+on+objects.+Instead+they+cause+space-time+to+bend..jpg)
Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."

How does it tell spacetime? You've answered nothing.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 03, 2019, 01:01:22 PM
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?
How does the electrostatic force communicate this information?
The same issues apply for all the fundamental forces.
With all fundamental forces there is always another question that can be asked any time an actual explanation is provided.
In actual fact, this is true of any so called "scientific fact." It's almost like science has no ability to determine the cause of anything.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 03, 2019, 01:07:16 PM
BS.
Everything has this "nonsense".
FE cannot explain what is causing the acceleration of Earth.
But unlike gravity, there is no justification for this magically acceleration being a fundamental force.

So the main difference is that FE resorts to this nonsense much earlier.
The question is what is the mechanism for gravity: we have answered this. Its acceleration. This is one step ahead of you lot. Well, as you admitted, infinitely many steps ahead of you.

You've said you have no explanation for fundamental forces. Clearly there is no explanation then for gravity. You can hand wave around the issue all you want, but round earth science can state nothing of fact.

I find it ridiculous for you to ask us to support our model, which you have admitted yours at its root lies on faith that at some point there will be some explanation - in spite of this being an open problem and fundamental flaw in the methodology you use to build your worldview.

Which is it? Do you know what causes gravity, or is it an unknown incomplete and at times incoherent theory?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on August 03, 2019, 01:21:38 PM
Hand wave nothing.
Whos behind?

RE logic:

Q1.Why do things fall?
A2.Its been shown that mass attracts mass, dunno why but it does and is an easily measureable phenomena.
Things fall "down" is because of gravity and mass and some space time PHd mumbo jumbo.

FE logic:
Q1.Why does UA go up?
A1.UA goss up because who knows.
Q2.Why does the earth block UA?
A2.Who knows.
Q3.Why are there variences in "weight" around the earth?
A3.Celestial gravity.
Q4.Oh how did gravity get into FE.
A4.To explain Q3.
Q5.So why cant the earth just have gravity?
A5.because a large flat plate would crush itself into a ball if given enough time.
Right...
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 03, 2019, 01:28:58 PM
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/6838955/23/images/8/Einstein%E2%80%99s+Gravity+Gravitational+fields+do+not+put+forces+on+objects.+Instead+they+cause+space-time+to+bend..jpg)
Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."

How does it tell spacetime? You've answered nothing.
Figure that out and you win a Nobel Prize.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 03, 2019, 01:39:10 PM
Hand wave nothing.
Whos behind?

RE logic:

Q1.Why do things fall?
A2.Its been shown that mass attracts mass, dunno why but it does and is an easily measureable phenomena.
Things fall "down" is because of gravity and mass and some space time PHd mumbo jumbo.
RE Logic:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]."
Q: All Mass?
A: We can't know that, but we'll say yes because we think we are so special we know about the entire universe based off a limited set of facts
Q: Isn't this against logic, and unprovable by logic?
A: Yes, as shown by every single one of our philosophers of science that have looked into it. They all have made their own rule that is also not based on logic that allows them to do this.
Q: Like a magic rule?
A: Yes.
Q: How does this force act at a distance with no carrier?
A: We invented a magic carrier for it. It travels in time. You can't see it. Its definitely not a fairy or a toaster, because we use those analogies to attack views that differ from ours anyways. We also made another magic theory which actually is contradictory to this carrier that says gravity bends space and time, rewriting geometry such that our methodology works.
Q: Doesn't that go against the idea that your particular point that we are so special we know about the entire universe based off locally experienced phenomena?
A: It does, but we ignore that too. Because science gives us microwaves.
Q: Why is it when we use the gravitational model that stems from your beliefs that we end up with a huge number of discrepancies and gravitational anomalies even when describing our own planet?
A: Yell umm.... This stuff has been repeatedly tested and falsified.
Q: I just gave instances of falsification. Can you really say something is falsified if you ignore all results to the contrary of its hypothesis? Would a batter not have a perfect average, if only his hits were recorded?

And so on.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2019, 01:40:02 PM
FE logic:
Q1.Why does UA go up?
A1.UA goss up because who knows.
Q2.Why does the earth block UA?
A2.Who knows.
Q3.Why are there variences in "weight" around the earth?
A3.Celestial gravity.
Q4.Oh how did gravity get into FE.
A4.To explain Q3.
Q5.So why cant the earth just have gravity?
A5.because a large flat plate would crush itself into a ball if given enough time.
Right...
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right? Not all FEers object to the concept. Some like Bishop, sure, they seem to object to it on a fundamental level so I very much doubt he'd appeal to celestial gravitation. I'm pretty sure he's already said in this thread he doesn't accept the existence of variation with respect to altitude. Other FEers are not Tom Bishop, why would they agree with him by default? Jamming completely disparate points of view together and acting like you have a point only makes REers look desperate. We're really not.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 03, 2019, 01:40:25 PM
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/6838955/23/images/8/Einstein%E2%80%99s+Gravity+Gravitational+fields+do+not+put+forces+on+objects.+Instead+they+cause+space-time+to+bend..jpg)
Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."

How does it tell spacetime? You've answered nothing.
Figure that out and you win a Nobel Prize.
A good point. Science is not impartial and is subject to the whims of grants, career advancement, fame and money.

Given that, how can you say the well is not tainted by "puzzle solvers" who simply push the envelope enough forward to set them up for life, and not chase actual truth - even if they are not intently doing this.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 03, 2019, 01:49:12 PM
I can’t say some don’t.

But At least some try to find the truth.

It’s better than ad hocing FE answers.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 03, 2019, 01:54:14 PM
Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."
Yes, just like everything else, the difference being this is a fundamental force.

Again, how does the electrostatic interaction work?
How does one charge tell another charge to move?
How does it know to make it move just the right amount based upon its charge?

If you want to appeal to the electric field, then how does charge change the electric field?
How does the electric field make a charge move?

With UA, what causes Earth to accelerate?
You have no answers.
With everything you will be able to just keep going down until you get to the answer.

The question is what is the mechanism for gravity: we have answered this.
No, the question is why do things fall.
We have the answer as gravity, a fundamental force observed between any 2 masses.
We even have a step further of explaining it as the curvature of space time.

On the other hand you have it as Earth magically accelerating upwards for no reason at all, with some variation thrown in for no reason at all.
That isn't one step ahead of us, it is one step behind, especially as an accelerating body is not a fundamental force.

RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.

Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Q: All Mass?
A: We can't know for sure, but so far all evidence points to it applying for all mass. A wide variety of masses have been tested and we are yet to find one which doesn't obey. So we take the simple, rational assumption that it would apply to all masses.
Q: Isn't this against logic, and unprovable by logic?
A: From a purely logical point of view, NOTHING is provable by logic, not even logic, as it relies upon assuming logic works.
So yes, as it isn't nothing, it is not provable by logic.
Q: How does this force act at a distance with no carrier?
A: Why should a force need a carrier? As Explained above, it is a distortion of space-time.
Q: Doesn't that go against the idea that your particular point that we are so special we know about the entire universe based off locally experienced phenomena?
A: No, that was your strawman, designed to make us look arrogant and stupid.
Q: Why is it when we use the gravitational model that stems from your beliefs that we end up with a huge number of discrepancies and gravitational anomalies even when describing our own planet?
A: Such as? Are you putting in every single piece of data about our planet?
Tell me, what is the density of Earth at a latitude of 35 degrees N and longitude of 145.7 degrees east 120.47 km below the surface?
Or perhaps expressed better, what is the uncertainty in the predicted value, and what is the anomaly?
Q: I just gave instances of falsification. Can you really say something is falsified if you ignore all results to the contrary of its hypothesis? Would a batter not have a perfect average, if only his hits were recorded?
A: No, you baselessly asserted a falsification, without any justification of it.

And so on.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 03, 2019, 01:59:41 PM
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
You mean how it doesn't actually block it because the stars and planets and moon all manage to experience it and move up as well?

But no, as these objects which are widely different all seem to move up at the same rate, this indicates it is not an interaction based upon the surface.
If it was an interaction based upon a surface it would produce an acceleration dependent upon the area and the mass.
So a tiny object like the stars would likely accelerate very quickly and be blown away by the UA, while the much larger Earth moves much more slowly.

As it instead needs to impart enough momentum to keep all objects moving together, I would say it makes far more sense for it to permeate through all objects and effect everything, and thus not get blocked by a giant disc.


As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right?
Which would also apply to Earth, meaning Earth would exert gravity and then it either collapses into a sphere with no need for UA or it would be infinite to keep it stable and still not need UA.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on August 03, 2019, 02:01:17 PM
I got lucky and jackB has saved me the effort.
Whoopwhoop.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2019, 02:17:07 PM
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
You mean how it doesn't actually block it because the stars and planets and moon all manage to experience it and move up as well?
Because any force can be interrupted and never again reform. That's why people can take shelter from the wind anywhere so long as there's an object somewhere within a few miles in the direction the wind's coming from.
Plus you immediately follow that by demonstrating that the force on the stars etc would need to be significantly smaller than the force on the Earth so, y'know, keep on contradicting yourself because you only ever want to make arguments based on quantity over quality.

Quote

As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right?
Which would also apply to Earth, meaning Earth would exert gravity and then it either collapses into a sphere with no need for UA or it would be infinite to keep it stable and still not need UA.
Sure, how has it been demonstrated that all masses exert gravity under all conditions, rather than it being just one possible trait?

I got lucky and jackB has saved me the effort.
Whoopwhoop.

If you're relying on Jackblack, you are in a terrible position.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 03, 2019, 02:53:06 PM
Because any force can be interrupted and never again reform. That's why people can take shelter from the wind anywhere so long as there's an object somewhere within a few miles in the direction the wind's coming from.
Sure, it just leaves a very tiny region blocked, that is why in order to use a building for protection from the wind you would need to be right up against it.

A rational approach would be to have the region protected be proportional to the size of the obstruction. A tree a mile away wouldn't protect  you from the wind, but a 10 m wide building still would protect you a few m from it.


Plus you immediately follow that by demonstrating that the force on the stars etc would need to be significantly smaller than the force on the Earth so, y'know, keep on contradicting yourself because you only ever want to make arguments based on quantity over quality.
It isn't just a case of the stars needing a force smaller than Earth, it is that they would need different forces from each other as well.
This means there is no reason to assume it is a surface effect, and thus no reason to assume Earth would block it.
It would be akin to saying an ordinary dinner plate should stop a magnet from attracting something on the other side.

But I notice you skipped over that part as it makes your case so much harder to prop up.

Also, people, being even smaller, would need even less force.

Sure, how has it been demonstrated that all masses exert gravity under all conditions, rather than it being just one possible trait?
In every test for it it has shown to happen, these are tests using objects from Earth, acting on other objects from Earth.

This is fundamentally incompatible with your highly selective celestial gravitation where the stars are made of magic and can exert gravity but not objects on Earth.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2019, 03:10:25 PM
This is fundamentally incompatible with your highly selective celestial gravitation where the stars are made of magic and can exert gravity but not objects on Earth.
So... when I point out that objects on Earth exert gravity and this can be detected... that means objects on Earth don't exert gravity. Sure, why not at this point? You don't even care about what you're saying do you?
Objects on Earth exerting gravity does not contardict FET, so long as the majority of the mass of the Earth itself is not exerting gravity. Understand the basics of what you are arguing against. You've been here long enough and you don't read a word do you? Jesus christ.

Quote
It isn't just a case of the stars needing a force smaller than Earth, it is that they would need different forces from each other as well.
This means there is no reason to assume it is a surface effect, and thus no reason to assume Earth would block it.

When you need to actively look for the situations where it doesn't work, that should be everything you need to know to realise you have a dumb argument.
Yep, the stars would need different forces, good thing they aren't all in the exact same location. The stars that aren't under the correct force would not be visible, they weren't made yesterday.

Earth blocks the accelerator - logical. It is not blocked forever - trivial. Some aspect of it affects the stars, but it isn't active significantly lower than that - trivial again.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing again.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2019, 03:15:49 PM
The authors of the paper are in the video. They claim the satellite provided evidence for general relativity by using gravitational redshift brought on by changes in gravitation from changes in altitude.
The equivalence principal is part of GR. Confirming the EP would confirm GR. The author states “We confirmed general relativity.” 

You wanted evidence for gravitational changes by altitude, you got it.

The Equivalence Principle says that gravity is like being on an upwardly accelerating platform or earth. Gravity Probe A and others claim to have confirmed the Equivalence Principle by comparing clock rates to clocks on the ground.

How could a detection of weak gravity at higher altitudes be a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

" The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field. "

It says that EP = Uniform Gravitational Field

" The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field.

The equivalence principle can be understood by picturing a rocket ship in two scenarios. First, imagine a rocket ship that is at rest on the Earth's surface; objects in the rocket ship are being accelerated downward at 9.81 m/s². Now, imagine a rocket ship that has escaped Earth's gravitational field and is accelerating upwards at a constant 9.81 m/s² due to thrust from its rockets; objects in the rocket ship that are dropped will fall to the floor with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s². This example shows that a uniformly accelerating reference frame is indistinguishable from a gravitational reference frame. "

Again, EP = Uniform Gravitational Field.

" The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that deeper in the gravity well the time flows slower,[4] and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million. "

It says that the Gravity Probe A ballistic rocket is a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle which predicts a uniform gravitational field and the changing clock rates which should occur.

I am unable to find where the weakening of gravity is described.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 03, 2019, 03:18:15 PM
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
You mean how it doesn't actually block it because the stars and planets and moon all manage to experience it and move up as well?
Because any force can be interrupted and never again reform. That's why people can take shelter from the wind anywhere so long as there's an object somewhere within a few miles in the direction the wind's coming from.
Plus you immediately follow that by demonstrating that the force on the stars etc would need to be significantly smaller than the force on the Earth so, y'know, keep on contradicting yourself because you only ever want to make arguments based on quantity over quality.

Quote

As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right?
Which would also apply to Earth, meaning Earth would exert gravity and then it either collapses into a sphere with no need for UA or it would be infinite to keep it stable and still not need UA.
Sure, how has it been demonstrated that all masses exert gravity under all conditions, rather than it being just one possible trait?

I got lucky and jackB has saved me the effort.
Whoopwhoop.

If you're relying on Jackblack, you are in a terrible position.

I think the basic point is there’s so much unexplained stuff in the UA “model”, for example:

- What causes the acceleration.
- How the motions of sun, moon stars and planets works.
- Why what we actually observe doesn’t remotely match what those motions are supposed to be.

And then, if people want to put a little bit of gravity into the model, then that is no more explained under UA than heliocentrism.

So it’s a bit absurd for John to complain about the lack of a complete fundamental understanding of gravity in comparison to a model that has the same unknown, plus a whole load more.

Sneering at it being akin to magic makes no sense, when flat earth models require far more magic.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2019, 03:21:52 PM
I think the basic point is there’s so much unexplained stuff in the UA “model”, for example:
'Certain users conveniently forgetting it every time they're told' is not the same thing as 'unexplained.' Only your third point there really even comes close to potentially unexplained, and that's more its own kind of argument than anything to do with UA.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 03, 2019, 03:47:25 PM

In actual fact, this is true of any so called "scientific fact." It's almost like science has no ability to determine the cause of anything.

And yet look at what has been achieved through science.  The fact we are having this conversation, for instance.

But science has limits.  We can only really verify what can be observed, measured and tested.  And even then, better explanations may come along later.  Theoretical physicists can propose hypotheses to make the maths check out, but without validation they remain hypotheses.

So we can observe and test the effects of gravity, but finding evidence of the fundamental workings is a damn sight harder.

Let’s assume it’s gravitons.  How do we directly detect gravitons?  Basically, we can’t.  Apparently the starship Enterprise can, but that’s just space fantasy.  In the real world, there’s nothing we could possibly build to that could detect them.

If you have an amazing idea how scientists are supposed to confirm how gravity works on a quantum level, you can earn yourself a Nobel prize.  Otherwise, you’re complaining that scientists don’t just know everything without having to investigate it.  And that really would be magic.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 03, 2019, 04:14:44 PM
I think the basic point is there’s so much unexplained stuff in the UA “model”, for example:
'Certain users conveniently forgetting it every time they're told' is not the same thing as 'unexplained.' Only your third point there really even comes close to potentially unexplained, and that's more its own kind of argument than anything to do with UA.

I don’t remember ever seeing an explanation for how the sun does the these circles above us, changing radius over the year, but somehow still doing one loop per day.

I don’t remember seeing more than a couple of vague ideas for the cause of the accelerator.  Certainly nothing close to the level of fundamental principles John expects for gravity.

And sure, pretty much all flat earth ideas have this incredibly obvious disparity between where they say things are and where we see them.  But that doesn’t make it any less of a problem for UA. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 03, 2019, 04:58:52 PM
So... when I point out that objects on Earth exert gravity and this can be detected... that means objects on Earth don't exert gravity.
No it doesn't.
It means objects on Earth exert gravity, unlike what celestial gravitation needs.

How about you address what I say rather than strawmanning it?
While you are at it, quit with the insults.

Objects on Earth exerting gravity does not contardict FET, so long as the majority of the mass of the Earth itself is not exerting gravity.
You only need enough to exert gravity to overcome the forces preventing Earth from collapsing into a sphere.

When you need to actively look for the situations where it doesn't work
I don't need to actively look.
I just need to think about how such forces would work.
When you need to avoid these cases that shows your argument is dumb.

Yep, the stars would need different forces, good thing they aren't all in the exact same location. The stars that aren't under the correct force would not be visible, they weren't made yesterday.
And that would be an argument, if the stars were always in the same position, and that position was stable.
But the stars change position, especially the sun which goes over a wide variety of positions with plenty of stars there as well.
And the position is unstable.
Following your idea of a weak flow above Earth, with it reforming more as you get further away, if the stars drift any further away from Earth than their perfect position, the force increases and they are blown away. If they drift any closer to Earth then the force is too weak and the fall.

So it simply doesn't work.
Every object in the sky should have either already fallen to Earth or already have been blown away.

Earth blocks the accelerator - logical.
As already shown, there is nothing logical about that as the accelerator is not behaving in the same way as wind.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing again.
No, that would be you.
I am arguing to point out a horribly flawed argument.
'Certain users conveniently forgetting it every time they're told' is not the same thing as 'unexplained.'
That's right. So why bring it up?
There is so much that isn't explained with UA.
There is no explanation for why UA is so selective and precise.

People repeatedly dodging the explanations or saying "we don't know" is not the same thing as explained.

If there was nothing in the sky and g was constant around Earth then it would be fairly okay with the main unexplained point being why Earth is accelerating in the first place.
So no, even his first point is unexplained.

If you have an explanation for what causes the acceleration feel free to provide it.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2019, 05:31:26 PM
So... when I point out that objects on Earth exert gravity and this can be detected... that means objects on Earth don't exert gravity.
No it doesn't.
It means objects on Earth exert gravity, unlike what celestial gravitation needs.
Great, except your words were "your highly selective celestial gravitation where the stars are made of magic and can exert gravity but not objects on Earth." Don't accuse me of straw manning when your lies are that obvious. I don't know why I ever even bother talking to you.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 03, 2019, 05:52:50 PM
Don't accuse me of straw manning when your lies are that obvious. I don't know why I ever even bother talking to you.
Other than using the word "magic", there is no strawmanning there.
The basis of the celestial gravity you presented was that the stars exert gravity, but Earth, as a whole does not have any significant gravity.
The problem is that every material on Earth that we have tested does exert gravity, yet you think it is irrational to conclude that all materials would, but think it is fine to just guess that the stars do but most of Earth doesn't?

I don't know why you bother talking either, as you don't bother to address what is said.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2019, 05:57:31 PM
I don't know why you bother talking either, as you don't bother to address what is said.
Jesus christ you're as bad as Rab.
So, let's recap.
I pointed out experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity.
You claim I in fact said nothing on Earth exerts gravity and celestial objects are exempt under celestial gravitation.
I point out your misrepresentation.
You claim objects on Earth do exert gravity now, the complete opposite of what you previously claimed, and somehow blame me for straw manning by quoting you.
I point out you just switched back.
You insist you were right all along despite claiming two diametrically opposed things.

Sure. I'm the one that ignores everything. Every single time I try talking to you, every single time... Good riddance.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 03, 2019, 06:30:42 PM
I pointed out experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity.
But the justification that FEers need is that celestial mass exert gravitation, and terrestrial mass does not (at least the majority of it).

You claim I in fact said nothing on Earth exerts gravity and celestial objects are exempt under celestial gravitation.
No, I claim you make it highly selective where celestial objects exert it, but Earth doesn't, even though the evidence is of Earth, not celestial objects.
That is not me misrepresenting your position.

You claim objects on Earth do exert gravity now, the complete opposite of what you previously claimed
No, that has always been my claim.
My claim was that under plenty of FE models, it doesn't.

Dishonestly presenting what I say about a particular model has as what I think is either strawmanning me or blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

And again, you just focus on this, rather than the actual topic of discussion, the highly selective universal accelerator with your highly selective gravity.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 03, 2019, 10:31:28 PM
I pointed out experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity.
My objection all along has been the use of Einstein's Equivalence Principle to make UA "look respectable".
But the essence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle is that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass.

Now you say "experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity".

But if "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth" then according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.

Now the flat-earthers can discard UA or discard using Einstein's Equivalence Principle to lend respectability to it.
Or are flat-earthers permitted to cherry-pick bits and pieces of Einstein's Equivalence Principle and reject the rest?

Now call me all the names you like, it seems all you are capable of doing!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 03:29:53 AM
But if "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth" then according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
That isn't true though. At all. That is just complete and utter rubbish. The EEP makes absolutely no claims as to what the origin of gravity is, it isn't even tangentially connected to it. It does not give a damn what causes it, how often it's caused, whether it's always present, it only makes a claim about what happens when it is there. Nothing about it stops working if you start positing a mass that doesn't exert gravity hanging out in the elevator with you. That is nonsense, Rab.

Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not the sum total of all of Einstein's work on gravity and relativity.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2019, 03:57:34 AM
But if "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth" then according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
That isn't true though. At all. That is just complete and utter rubbish. The EEP makes absolutely no claims as to what the origin of gravity is, it isn't even tangentially connected to it. It does not give a damn what causes it, how often it's caused, whether it's always present, it only makes a claim about what happens when it is there. Nothing about it stops working if you start positing a mass that doesn't exert gravity hanging out in the elevator with you. That is nonsense, Rab.
No, it is not! You said "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth". But all mass must be Inertial Mass otherwise it is not mass.
All definitions of mass in physics seem to boil down to:
Quote
Scientific Definition of Mass
Mass is the quantity of inertia (resistance to acceleration) possessed by an object.

If you disagree, then please explain how you could even define a mass that was not an Inertial Mass.

So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.

Now, you might claim that we are talking about flat earth physics here.
That's fine and accepted. Just stop cherry-picking the bits of Einstein's work that fits into this flat earth physics - especially as I've seen no consistent flat earth physics yet.

Quote from: Jane
Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not the sum total of all of Einstein's work on gravity and relativity.
Of course "Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not the sum total of all of Einstein's work on gravity and relativity"! Whoever said that it was?

Einstein's Equivalence Principle was just the first step of his long path to his Theory of General Relativity.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 04:30:02 AM
No, it is not! You said "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth". But all mass must be Inertial Mass otherwise it is not mass.
All definitions of mass in physics seem to boil down to:
Quote
Scientific Definition of Mass
Mass is the quantity of inertia (resistance to acceleration) possessed by an object.
And why does that mean it exerts gravity, rather than merely being subject to it?
Seriously getting sick of needing to repeat that given you ignore it every single time. Stop rambling about nothing. The EEP has no relevance to the origin of gravity, it's only concerned about describing it assuming it does exist regardless of what traits it has. You don't have an argument, there's a reason you completely skip over the actually important details every time. Stop wasting everybody's time with your incessant rants.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 04, 2019, 04:32:34 AM
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
Technically no.
Under Newtonian gravity, yes, they must all exert gravitation, to fill in the F=G M m r2
With relativity the 2 aspects of gravity can be separated.
The first is the mass or energy which curves space time.
The second is the mass or energy that is following the curved space time.

The equivalence principle says that the second mass is the same as inertial mass.
The rational conclusion to this is that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same (or as I like to put it, the gravitational charge is mass).
However, it still allows a hypothetical other way of bending space (or having it unconnected to inertial mass entirely), which keeps the equivalence principle as objects in this bent space time still act as if they were in an accelerating reference frame with the force of gravity a pseudoforce.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2019, 05:55:35 AM
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
Technically no.
Under Newtonian gravity, yes, they must all exert gravitation, to fill in the F=G M m r2
With relativity the 2 aspects of gravity can be separated.
The first is the mass or energy which curves space time.
The second is the mass or energy that is following the curved space time.
But don't "both" mass/energies curve space time and are following the curved space time?
In other words these mass/energies are "technically" inseparable.
This combined with the non-linearity of the equations makes closed solutions for GR so far impossible except for special cases such as the Schwarzschild metric.

In the Schwarzschild metric you could separate these mass/energies but it only applies in the case of small bodies in the presence of one large spherically symmetric body, such as the earth with orbiting satellites etc.

Quote from: JackBlack
The equivalence principle says that the second mass is the same as inertial mass.
The rational conclusion to this is that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same (or as I like to put it, the gravitational charge is mass).
However, it still allows a hypothetical other way of bending space (or having it unconnected to inertial mass entirely), which keeps the equivalence principle as objects in this bent space time still act as if they were in an accelerating reference frame with the force of gravity a pseudoforce.
That would seem to apply only if mass and energy are regarded as separate but I'd understood that in GR they were inseparable and in cases like this one should speak of mass/energy.

But I'm no expert on GR but this would seem consistent with the above Mathpages 2.3  The Inertia of Energy (https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-03/2-03.htm).
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 07:22:07 AM
The authors of the paper are in the video. They claim the satellite provided evidence for general relativity by using gravitational redshift brought on by changes in gravitation from changes in altitude.
The equivalence principal is part of GR. Confirming the EP would confirm GR. The author states “We confirmed general relativity.” 

You wanted evidence for gravitational changes by altitude, you got it.

The Equivalence Principle says that gravity is like being on an upwardly accelerating platform or earth. Gravity Probe A and others claim to have confirmed the Equivalence Principle by comparing clock rates to clocks on the ground.

How could a detection of weak gravity at higher altitudes be a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

" The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field. "

It says that EP = Uniform Gravitational Field

" The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field.

The equivalence principle can be understood by picturing a rocket ship in two scenarios. First, imagine a rocket ship that is at rest on the Earth's surface; objects in the rocket ship are being accelerated downward at 9.81 m/s². Now, imagine a rocket ship that has escaped Earth's gravitational field and is accelerating upwards at a constant 9.81 m/s² due to thrust from its rockets; objects in the rocket ship that are dropped will fall to the floor with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s². This example shows that a uniformly accelerating reference frame is indistinguishable from a gravitational reference frame. "

Again, EP = Uniform Gravitational Field.

" The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that deeper in the gravity well the time flows slower,[4] and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million. "

It says that the Gravity Probe A ballistic rocket is a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle which predicts a uniform gravitational field and the changing clock rates which should occur.

I am unable to find where the weakening of gravity is described.

Maybe read your own post again.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 04, 2019, 08:26:23 AM
That's what the Equivalence Principle predicts:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Gravitational_Time_Dilation

Quote
The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity
By Fred C. Adams, PhD and Prof. Greg Laughlin

On p.116 of The Five Ages of the Universe (Archive), its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an upwardly accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

  “ however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner. ”

The authors explain that time dilation should be a natural consequence in an upwardly accelerating rocket, and acknowledge that its application to gravity on earth is "strange" and "bizarre".

Time dilation at different altitudes has been confirmed in the laboratory. See: Optical Clocks and Relativity (Archive) "
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 04, 2019, 08:27:42 AM
No, it is not! You said "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth". But all mass must be Inertial Mass otherwise it is not mass.
All definitions of mass in physics seem to boil down to:
Quote
Scientific Definition of Mass
Mass is the quantity of inertia (resistance to acceleration) possessed by an object.
And why does that mean it exerts gravity, rather than merely being subject to it?
Seriously getting sick of needing to repeat that given you ignore it every single time. Stop rambling about nothing. The EEP has no relevance to the origin of gravity, it's only concerned about describing it assuming it does exist regardless of what traits it has. You don't have an argument, there's a reason you completely skip over the actually important details every time. Stop wasting everybody's time with your incessant rants.

The equivalence principle was only a step towards more fully formed theories of special and general relativity.

According to general relativity, mass exerts gravity, it has to.

Doesn’t it seem a bit odd to rely on the equivalence principle to justify UA, while rejecting what general relativity says about gravity?  How do people decide that the equivalence principle should be treated as fact, while the rest of it can be dismissed?

Sounds like some serious cherry picking to me.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 09:32:33 AM
Doesn’t it seem a bit odd to rely on the equivalence principle to justify UA, while rejecting what general relativity says about gravity?  How do people decide that the equivalence principle should be treated as fact, while the rest of it can be dismissed?

Sounds like some serious cherry picking to me.
Because they're... not the same thing? Like, the evidence underpinning them, the key postulates, it's all pretty different. It's cherrypicking inasmuch as they cherrypick all of science, but it's a bit silly to single out EEP. Especially as cherrypicking covers more just going for whatever's convenient, which isn't going to be the case for an actual FEer; sure, you're free to believe that, but it doesn't change how they'd argue they only go for that which has more justification.

Plus GR doesn't prove mass exerts gravity, it assumes it. Like, that's just how it works. It doesn't prove most of what people associate with it; SR didn't prove that the speed of light was a limit, people already suspected that at the time, Einstein was just the guy that stopped speculating about why and just took it as a postulate, came up with transformations to figure out how it worked, and published the consequences. It got accepted because those consequences were in line with observations, such as the transit of Mercury. You can't mathematically prove all masses exert a gravitational field at all times, you just... can't.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 09:54:25 AM
That's what the Equivalence Principle predicts:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Gravitational_Time_Dilation

Quote
The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity
By Fred C. Adams, PhD and Prof. Greg Laughlin

On p.116 of The Five Ages of the Universe (Archive), its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an upwardly accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

  “ however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner. ”

The authors explain that time dilation should be a natural consequence in an upwardly accelerating rocket, and acknowledge that its application to gravity on earth is "strange" and "bizarre".

Time dilation at different altitudes has been confirmed in the laboratory. See: Optical Clocks and Relativity (Archive) "
I’m aware what the EP states. Do you have a point?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: kachowabunga 17 on August 04, 2019, 12:17:23 PM
Wait...
If the Earth has to move up at 9.8 m/s2 to create "gravity" on the flat earth, that means earth is infinitely accelerating and would reach ridiculous speeds quite easily. Does that mean that over thousands of years Earth has been constantly accelerating? that makes NO sense.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on August 04, 2019, 02:22:57 PM
Wait...
If the Earth has to move up at 9.8 m/s2 to create "gravity" on the flat earth, that means earth is infinitely accelerating and would reach ridiculous speeds quite easily. Does that mean that over thousands of years Earth has been constantly accelerating? that makes NO sense.

It would reach ridiculous speeds relative to what, exactly?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 04, 2019, 02:54:59 PM
But don't "both" mass/energies curve space time and are following the curved space time?
In other words these mass/energies are "technically" inseparable. 
This combined with the non-linearity of the equations makes closed solutions for GR so far impossible except for special cases such as the Schwarzschild metric.
Yes, under relativity.
But the equivalence principle is only the latter part.
It leaves the hypothetical possibility of something else bending space time.


i.e. relativity says they are the same, the equivalence principle does not.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Themightykabool on August 04, 2019, 03:17:28 PM

In actual fact, this is true of any so called "scientific fact." It's almost like science has no ability to determine the cause of anything.



Determine, statistically determine, observeable results attribute behaviour and properties.

Pretty sure our 99% confidence is good enough when it acheives the goals at hand.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2019, 03:48:12 PM
And why does that mean it exerts gravity, rather than merely being subject to it?.
How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity? All forces are two-way - an apple exerts the same force on earth as the earth does on the apple.

If you disagree, please state the laws of motion that you subscribe to or that you think that flat earthers subscribe to?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2019, 03:57:11 PM
But don't "both" mass/energies curve space time and are following the curved space time?
In other words these mass/energies are "technically" inseparable. 
This combined with the non-linearity of the equations makes closed solutions for GR so far impossible except for special cases such as the Schwarzschild metric.
Yes, under relativity.
But the equivalence principle is only the latter part.
It leaves the hypothetical possibility of something else bending spacetime.

i.e. relativity says they are the same, the equivalence principle does not.
But that still leaves flat earthers as "cherry-picking" the bits of Einstein that they think fits their narrative but I guess that's what they do!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: boydster on August 04, 2019, 04:11:03 PM
Rab stop derailing
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 04:31:14 PM
How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity? All forces are two-way - an apple exerts the same force on earth as the earth does on the apple.
(http://i.imgur.com/nB7z6a1.gif)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 04:35:29 PM
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 04:36:37 PM
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Which has been confirmed by taking samples of the stars, and is why all elements possess the same traits as each other.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 04:38:40 PM
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Which has been confirmed by taking samples of the stars, and is why all elements possess the same traits as each other.
There are of course other ways to analyze matter without having a sample in hand.

But actually current theory is stars make heavy elements. There are heavy elements on earth. None have been found to be different.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Which has been confirmed by taking samples of the stars, and is why all elements possess the same traits as each other.
There are of course other ways to analyze matter without having a sample in hand.
And of course confirming that the sole matter present elsewhere can be done just by assuming the local framework.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 04:44:39 PM
Current theory is stars make heavy elements. There are heavy elements on earth. None have been found to be different.

Science is real.

But anyways EM radiation is a property that is used to help identify material that’s far away.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 05:03:23 PM
Science is real.
Yes, it is. It is also well aware of what is a postulate and what is observed fact. Insisting postulates have to hold isn't science.

I'll be the first in line to admit I don't have a bloody clue what the Higgs field is all about, and I'm willing to bet that no one else here has much understanding beyond the surface level, so everyone crowding around to make all these firm claims about what is and isn't possible when it comes to mass is just an exercise in pointlessness because you don't know any more than I do. This being possible just doesn't mean much on the grand scale. FET lacks persuasive evidence and that's its achilles heel, not whether random individual aspects are possible under a coherent framework.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 05:17:26 PM
Science is real.
Yes, it is. It is also well aware of what is a postulate and what is observed fact. Insisting postulates have to hold isn't science.

I'll be the first in line to admit I don't have a bloody clue what the Higgs field is all about, and I'm willing to bet that no one else here has much understanding beyond the surface level, so everyone crowding around to make all these firm claims about what is and isn't possible when it comes to mass is just an exercise in pointlessness because you don't know any more than I do. This being possible just doesn't mean much on the grand scale. FET lacks persuasive evidence and that's its achilles heel, not whether random individual aspects are possible under a coherent framework.

Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 05:21:53 PM
Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
The postulates of those theories on the other hand...
Every scientific theory has postulates. They're accepted because they're predictions match what we observe, but that doesn't mean they're not postulates and doesn't preclude the possibility of them being replaced by something better. That's what science is. Pretending like it has to be more than that is what encourages pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 05:42:40 PM
Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
The postulates of those theories on the other hand...
Every scientific theory has postulates. They're accepted because they're predictions match what we observe, but that doesn't mean they're not postulates and doesn't preclude the possibility of them being replaced by something better. That's what science is. Pretending like it has to be more than that is what encourages pseudoscience.

You are forgetting theories are tested with experiments. Postulates are based on reasoning.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2019, 05:47:52 PM
Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
The postulates of those theories on the other hand...
Every scientific theory has postulates. They're accepted because they're predictions match what we observe, but that doesn't mean they're not postulates and doesn't preclude the possibility of them being replaced by something better. That's what science is. Pretending like it has to be more than that is what encourages pseudoscience.
You are forgetting theories are tested with experiments. Postulates are based on reasoning.
So you could almost say... they're accepted because their predictions match what we observe.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2019, 05:51:42 PM
Which has nothing to do with reason.

Edit: Also they are not accepted because of what we observe. They are expected because of testing. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 05, 2019, 02:10:59 AM
Doesn’t it seem a bit odd to rely on the equivalence principle to justify UA, while rejecting what general relativity says about gravity?  How do people decide that the equivalence principle should be treated as fact, while the rest of it can be dismissed?

Sounds like some serious cherry picking to me.
Because they're... not the same thing? Like, the evidence underpinning them, the key postulates, it's all pretty different. It's cherrypicking inasmuch as they cherrypick all of science, but it's a bit silly to single out EEP. Especially as cherrypicking covers more just going for whatever's convenient, which isn't going to be the case for an actual FEer; sure, you're free to believe that, but it doesn't change how they'd argue they only go for that which has more justification.

I “singled out” the equivalence principle, because that’s what we’re talking about.  That flat earthers do the same with other parts of science isn’t my problem.



Quote
Plus GR doesn't prove mass exerts gravity, it assumes it. Like, that's just how it works. It doesn't prove most of what people associate with it; SR didn't prove that the speed of light was a limit, people already suspected that at the time, Einstein was just the guy that stopped speculating about why and just took it as a postulate, came up with transformations to figure out how it worked, and published the consequences. It got accepted because those consequences were in line with observations, such as the transit of Mercury. You can't mathematically prove all masses exert a gravitational field at all times, you just... can't.

I never said it was “proved”, although there is plenty of evidence validating the theory.

Einstein didn’t just  “assume” mass/energy was part of his equations.  He hypothesized it and derived his equations from established physical principles plus his own reasoning, including the equivalence principle.

What you really can’t do is just swap out mass/energy with something else and keep the rest the same. 

If you want to hypothesize some other property instead of mass, you need to start with the appropriate physical relationships of whatever you think is the cause, and derive entirely new equations from there.

How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity? All forces are two-way - an apple exerts the same force on earth as the earth does on the apple.
(http://i.imgur.com/nB7z6a1.gif)

Have you tried moving an apple with a magnet?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 05, 2019, 02:15:50 AM
How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity? All forces are two-way - an apple exerts the same force on earth as the earth does on the apple.
(http://i.imgur.com/nB7z6a1.gif)
Please explain the relevance ::)!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 05, 2019, 02:21:21 AM
The appeal to magnets is fairly simple:
You can have 2 pieces of iron, they don't stick to each other.
You can have 2 magnets. They do stick to each other.
You can have a magnet and a piece of iron. They do stick to each other.
So magnets (at least to a layman) appear to be able to exert a force onto another material, which is then affected by this force, even though this material doesn't exert the force by itself.

The big problems are that magnetism is a dipole interaction, unlike gravity's unipolar interaction, and when a piece of iron is affected by a magnet, it exerts magnetism as well.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 05, 2019, 03:52:01 AM
The appeal to magnets is fairly simple:
You can have 2 pieces of iron, they don't stick to each other.
You can have 2 magnets. They do stick to each other.
You can have a magnet and a piece of iron. They do stick to each other.
So magnets (at least to a layman) appear to be able to exert a force onto another material, which is then affected by this force, even though this material doesn't exert the force by itself.

The big problems are that magnetism is a dipole interaction, unlike gravity's unipolar interaction, and when a piece of iron is affected by a magnet, it exerts magnetism as well.
So magnetic attraction is irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2019, 04:05:20 AM
So magnetic attraction is irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
Or rather, it demonstrates that your claim that there is no possible way for something to be affected by a force if it does not also exert it, is just wrong. But potayto potahto. Sure, in the magnetism case you get specific interactions you don't with gravity, but that's what's irrelevant. Otherwise it's pretty common for things to be subject to magnetism while also not exerting it, unless they are put in a situation where something makes them exert it. Which ties in pretty neatly to what I've been quoting for a while now.

I never said it was “proved”, although there is plenty of evidence validating the theory.

Einstein didn’t just  “assume” mass/energy was part of his equations.  He hypothesized it and derived his equations from established physical principles plus his own reasoning, including the equivalence principle.

What you really can’t do is just swap out mass/energy with something else and keep the rest the same. 

If you want to hypothesize some other property instead of mass, you need to start with the appropriate physical relationships of whatever you think is the cause, and derive entirely new equations from there.
It's not a matter of assuming mass/energy, it's a matter of assuming it's a universal property of mass, and that in all situations all masses will exert it. If there's a mass out there that doesn't when it's, say, subject to a certain kind of electric field (as I've seen proposed), that in no way invalidates the application of the equations to masses that do.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 05, 2019, 05:02:38 AM
So magnetic attraction is irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
Or rather, it demonstrates that your claim that there is no possible way for something to be affected by a force if it does not also exert it, is just wrong.
Is it a property of the permanent magnet or of the soft iron?
Even a permanent magnet will not attract brass but it will attract a piece of soft iron so it is clearly a property of both - so am I so very wrong?

But none of that makes magnetic attraction relevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 05, 2019, 05:11:05 AM

It's not a matter of assuming mass/energy, it's a matter of assuming it's a universal property of mass, and that in all situations all masses will exert it. If there's a mass out there that doesn't when it's, say, subject to a certain kind of electric field (as I've seen proposed), that in no way invalidates the application of the equations to masses that do.

No, because mass is a base unit of measurement.  There’s no mass out there that isn’t mass.

If you want to replace mass with some other property that only some materials exhibit under whatever circumstances, it’s no longer mass in the equation.

In the same way that F=ma.  If you change the m to something else, then F is no longer force, but a completely different thing.  And you can’t just say it only applies to some mass.

So you could maybe say some matter produces x amount of Janes (lets call this new unit after you) when subjected to an electric field.  Janes aren’t mass, they are something else.  So you need to work out what Janes are in relation to our existing units of measurement. 

Then you may be able to derive new field equations based on Janes not mass, but they will be different.

Of course then you lose the two way interaction in Einstein’s field equations where mass affects spacetime and spacetime affects mass.  Now you have Janes affect spacetime, and spacetime affects mass.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2019, 05:20:02 AM
But none of that makes magnetic attraction relevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
It does, you're just ignoring it. You've already conceded that something can be subject to a force without exerting it, and now you're just coming up with irrelevancies to distract from that. Grow up. Like, legitimately Rab, this doesn't matter, but the way you carry on you'd think RET would fall tomorrow if the merest possibility was granted.

No, because mass is a base unit of measurement.  There’s no mass out there that isn’t mass.
And that still doesn't make 'has mass' and 'exerts gravity' synonyms. The consequences of a property are not the same as the property itself. Take force in general; explosive forces generate shockwaves depending on the nature of what's around them, but put it in a vacuum and you no longer get them. That doesn't mean the properties of the object change, that it magically stopped having mass or exerting a force, just that nothing in science functions totally independently.
This is pretty universal. If condition A is met, GR as conventionally understood holds. If condition A is not met, it does not. That's literally all this comes down to. Relativity is kinda the perfect thing to apply it too, but it's exactly how relativity and Newton interact as well. Arguing against every little thing just because a FEer was the first to propose it is just silly.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 05, 2019, 05:43:53 AM
But none of that makes magnetic attraction relevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
It does, you're just ignoring it. You've already conceded that something can be subject to a force without exerting it,
But that something does not have the properties of gravitation and that is what makes the magnetic analogy irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"

Quote from: Jane
and now you're just coming up with irrelevancies to distract from that.
No, you are the one coming up with irrelevancies because of your irrelevant analogy.

Quote from: Jane
Grow up. Like, legitimately Rab, this doesn't matter, but the way you carry on you'd think RET would fall tomorrow if the merest possibility was granted.
I agree, it doesn't really matter so why don't you grow up for once and let the matter simply drop - but no you can't ever just let something drop!

Who is carrying on again ;D? I wouldn't be responding unless you kept going on and on and on ;)!
It takes two to Tango, as they say, though I wouldn't Tango with you if my life depended on it.

And no, I do not for a second think, whatever Plat Terra etc might claim, that the Globe might fall tomorrow.

But I'm just wondering if you ever give up with your nitpicking ;D ;D, but I guess not because it's just what you do!

Have fun, Lady Jane!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 05, 2019, 05:46:06 AM

And that still doesn't make 'has mass' and 'exerts gravity' synonyms. The consequences of a property are not the same as the property itself.

It does in Einstein’s field equations, because he derived them using mass/energy relationships.

Quote
Take force in general; explosive forces generate shockwaves depending on the nature of what's around them, but put it in a vacuum and you no longer get them. That doesn't mean the properties of the object change, that it magically stopped having mass or exerting a force, just that nothing in science functions totally independently.

In atmosphere, some of the force acts on the mass of the atmosphere, accelerating it to cause shockwaves.  In a vacuum, all the force accelerates the mass of whatever you’ve exploded.

Force. Mass.  Acceleration. Force. Mass.  Acceleration.

I think you’ve just demonstrated  my point. 

Quote
This is pretty universal. If condition A is met, GR as conventionally understood holds. If condition A is not met, it does not. That's literally all this comes down to. Relativity is kinda the perfect thing to apply it too, but it's exactly how relativity and Newton interact as well.

Nope.  You are talking about arbitrarily swapping out one unit of measurement for something else and keeping the equation the same.  Nothing in physics works this way. 

Quote
Arguing against every little thing just because a FEer was the first to propose it is just silly.

I’m arguing with you about what you are saying.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2019, 05:58:12 AM
But that something does not have the properties of gravitation
No, gravity and magnetism are not the same thing, do you want a medal? Your claim that something must exert any field it's subjected to, on the other hand, remains nonsense. Like, when you need to totally change the subject that really should be an indication to you that you're arguing for nothing.

It does in Einstein’s field equations, because he derived them using mass/energy relationships.
Again, he did not derive it, he assumed it. You cannot mathematically derive a property of all masses. That's.. that's just not how maths works.

Quote
Nope.  You are talking about arbitrarily swapping out one unit of measurement for something else and keeping the equation the same.  Nothing in physics works this way. 
Uh... what?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 05, 2019, 06:28:07 AM

It does in Einstein’s field equations, because he derived them using mass/energy relationships.
Again, he did not derive it, he assumed it.

What?  Of course he derived it.

He started with the assumption (if you like) that Newtonian gravity basically works in most circumstances we can observe.  This is the basic starting point of deriving the field equations.

I don’t pretend to understand all of this, but here’s how to derive the equations yourself, following Einstein’s steps.

http://www.physics.ucc.ie/apeer/PY4112/Einstein.pdf

If you start with some other property other than mass, you’ll get different equations (if it works at all).

Do you really think he just guessed?

Quote
You cannot mathematically derive a property of all masses. That's.. that's just not how maths works.

Are you referring to matter or objects when you say masses?  I’m talking about mass, which IS a fundamental property of matter. (Rest mass, at least).

Quote
Quote
Nope.  You are talking about arbitrarily swapping out one unit of measurement for something else and keeping the equation the same.  Nothing in physics works this way. 
Uh... what?

Spend a bit more time considering what I’m saying.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2019, 07:12:00 AM
If you start with some other property other than mass, you’ll get different equations (if it works at all).
You are alternating between two completely different claims when one stops working. Don't. It's not a good look for anyone.
Yes, Einstein used mass as a property, I haven't questioned that. There are worlds between that and somehow mathematically proving that all mass exerts gravity in all situations. Again, Einstein did not prove that. He could not prove that, that is not a mathematical claim, there is no even conceivable way for him to prove that. He assumed mass exerted gravity, he did not prove it, because that wasn't what he was trying to do, he just looked at what happened assuming it was the case.
I've done this. Special relativity starts by pointing out what happens at high velocities, when it is postulated that the speed of light is an absolute limit. Then you have the EEP, which basically just states the relationship between force and acceleration, so any force exerted by a gravitational force causes an acceleration equivalent to an acceleration caused by regular kinetic means. So extend SR to the case where it allows for acceleration rather than just velocity, and you've got something you can apply to acceleration caused by gravity. Only then does mass enter into it, as part of the definition he used for gravity.
So, yet again, Einstein did not prove that something having mass and something exerting gravity were the same thing. He just didn't. That was one of the things he took as given. If you're dealing with a mass that does exert gravity, everything is the same, but at no point did Einstein show, or could have even conceivably shown, that that was the only type of mass that exists.
I should not seriously need to keep saying this,e specially when your responses bear no resemblance to anything I am actually saying.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 05, 2019, 07:56:06 AM
If you start with some other property other than mass, you’ll get different equations (if it works at all).
You are alternating between two completely different claims when one stops working. Don't. It's not a good look for anyone.

Which claims am I making that are inconsistent?

I’m trying to address everything you say, which leaves me jumping all over the place.  I notice of course that you only reply to a fraction of what I say, even when they are direct replies to your claims.

Quote
Yes, Einstein used mass as a property, I haven't questioned that. There are worlds between that and somehow mathematically proving that all mass exerts gravity in all situations. Again, Einstein did not prove that. He could not prove that, that is not a mathematical claim, there is no even conceivable way for him to prove that.

You are the one who keeps bringing up proof.  I’ve never said anything is proven.

Quote
He assumed mass exerted gravity, he did not prove it, because that wasn't what he was trying to do, he just looked at what happened assuming it was the case.
I've done this. Special relativity starts by pointing out what happens at high velocities, when it is postulated that the speed of light is an absolute limit. Then you have the EEP, which basically just states the relationship between force and acceleration, so any force exerted by a gravitational force causes an acceleration equivalent to an acceleration caused by regular kinetic means. So extend SR to the case where it allows for acceleration rather than just velocity, and you've got something you can apply to acceleration caused by gravity. Only then does mass enter into it, as part of the definition he used for gravity.
So, yet again, Einstein did not prove that something having mass and something exerting gravity were the same thing. He just didn't.

More about proof, when I do not talk of proof.

Quote
That was one of the things he took as given.

Yes, he took it as a given.  And used that as the fundamental starting point to derive his field equations.

This is my whole point.  Mass, as a basic property is fundamental to Einstein’s field equations. 


Do you still deny that Einstein derived his equations, after I linked how to do it?

Because that’s not a “good look”, to use your words.

Quote
If you're dealing with a mass that does exert gravity, everything is the same, but at no point did Einstein show, or could have even conceivably shown, that that was the only type of mass that exists.

And now we’re back into nonsense.  Mass, as a basic unit of measurement, doesn’t have “different types”.  At least, if there are, it would mean overturning physics completely.

Mass, along with distance, time and temperature is a bass unit of measurement.  Talking of different types of mass is like talking about different types of distance.

Quote
I should not seriously need to keep saying this,e specially when your responses bear no resemblance to anything I am actually saying.

Ah, your famous catchphrase.  It doesn’t help your arguments.  You don’t need to keep saying it.  It’s your choice.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2019, 08:08:20 AM
Yes, he took it as a given.  And used that as the fundamental starting point to derive his field equations.

This is my whole point.  Mass, as a basic property is fundamental to Einstein’s field equations. 


Do you still deny that Einstein derived his equations, after I linked how to do it?
What even is your point at this stage? Like, I never denied mass was part of Einstein's equations, and you seriously don't need to tell me how they're derived, but you're either contributing absolutely nothing to the thread, or insisting that FEers can't use a variation on gravity just because Einstein didn't account for it, even when it would never contradict his equations and despite the fact that kind of addition is exactly how relativity would be improved, in theory. Like. What actually is your point?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 05, 2019, 08:17:59 AM
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.

Quote
Q: All Mass?
A: We can't know for sure, but so far all evidence points to it applying for all mass. A wide variety of masses have been tested and we are yet to find one which doesn't obey. So we take the simple, rational assumption that it would apply to all masses.
Incorrect. This is not a rational assumption. A rational assumption would be one that makes use of deductive logic. You have made an inductive or empirical assumption, and one which you cannot logically support. Again, no straw man.

Quote
Q: Isn't this against logic, and unprovable by logic?
A: From a purely logical point of view, NOTHING is provable by logic, not even logic, as it relies upon assuming logic works.
Incorrect. Logic is an internally self consistent system which includes deductive logic. Inductive logic cannot be justified however. Again, no straw man.

Quote
So yes, as it isn't nothing, it is not provable by logic.
Q: How does this force act at a distance with no carrier?
A: Why should a force need a carrier? As Explained above, it is a distortion of space-time.
A distortion which is communicated how? Are we to believe its magic? If it needs no carrier, what of the fabled "graviton"? Is this not, like I said before, rewriting geometry so your theory works through use of magic?

Again, no straw man.

Quote

Q: Doesn't that go against the idea that your particular point that we are so special we know about the entire universe based off locally experienced phenomena?
A: No, that was your strawman, designed to make us look arrogant and stupid.
Sure seems like it was yours when you were trying to support making a rational argument, which in fact was actually an inductive one.

I guess if it was a straw man, it did make you look arrogant and stupid. However, it was not. You just don't know what the word rational means.

Quote
Q: Why is it when we use the gravitational model that stems from your beliefs that we end up with a huge number of discrepancies and gravitational anomalies even when describing our own planet?
A: Such as? Are you putting in every single piece of data about our planet?
Such as known gravitational anomalies. These are of course by definition outside the "uncertainty" as you put it.

Quote
Q: I just gave instances of falsification. Can you really say something is falsified if you ignore all results to the contrary of its hypothesis? Would a batter not have a perfect average, if only his hits were recorded?
A: No, you baselessly asserted a falsification, without any justification of it.
Perhaps this is fair. However, the incoherencies and falsifications of your model are well known to any that choose not to turn a blind eye to them.

Quote
And so on.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on August 05, 2019, 08:24:46 AM
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 05, 2019, 08:26:32 AM
Yes, he took it as a given.  And used that as the fundamental starting point to derive his field equations.

This is my whole point.  Mass, as a basic property is fundamental to Einstein’s field equations. 


Do you still deny that Einstein derived his equations, after I linked how to do it?
What even is your point at this stage?

Just trying to correct your misconceptions.

Quote
Like, I never denied mass was part of Einstein's equations, and you seriously don't need to tell me how they're derived,

LOL.  A moment ago you denied they were derived at all!

Quote
but you're either contributing absolutely nothing to the thread,

Neither are you.

Quote
or insisting that FEers can't use a variation on gravity just because Einstein didn't account for it, even when it would never contradict his equations and despite the fact that kind of addition is exactly how relativity would be improved, in theory.

If you don’t use the fundamental property of mass, his equations are not valid.  Substituting another property is a contradiction.  Do you understand this yet?

Quote
Like. What actually is your point?

Trying to help your understanding.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 05, 2019, 09:01:43 AM
Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."
Yes, just like everything else, the difference being this is a fundamental force.

Again, how does the electrostatic interaction work?
How does one charge tell another charge to move?
How does it know to make it move just the right amount based upon its charge?

If you want to appeal to the electric field, then how does charge change the electric field?
How does the electric field make a charge move?

With UA, what causes Earth to accelerate?
You have no answers.
With everything you will be able to just keep going down until you get to the answer.
Saying its a fundamental force and hand waving doesn't do either side any favors. The Earth accelerates due to the universal accelerator.

As you likely know, Dark Energy causes the earth to accelerate. And it does so in a much more reasonable way than the magical round earth "dark energy."

Quote
The question is what is the mechanism for gravity: we have answered this.
No, the question is why do things fall.
We have the answer as gravity, a fundamental force observed between any 2 masses.
We even have a step further of explaining it as the curvature of space time.
It has not been observed between any two masses. That is an outright lie.

Also, your two explanations are incoherent. Its not a step forward - its one backwards. Is it a fundamental force? Or is it a pseudoforce?

Why do things fall? They don't. The earth rises to meet them, under UA.

You are trying to bundle up the moving planets in your model which seem to work at a distance squared, and the fact things fall. These are of course two separate phenomena and you have done absolutely nothing to show otherwise.

Quote
On the other hand you have it as Earth magically accelerating upwards for no reason at all, with some variation thrown in for no reason at all.
That isn't one step ahead of us, it is one step behind, especially as an accelerating body is not a fundamental force.
If its a fundamental force, what is its carrier? How can we directly observe it, without presuming its existence?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 05, 2019, 09:04:45 AM
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 05, 2019, 09:09:06 AM
I feel the need to point out you putting down my supposed straw man which was in reply to the RE straw man, which you then rewrote into a new straw man. Pot, you need to meet kettle. I think you have a lot in common.

Oh Action Jack.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2019, 09:11:46 AM
LOL.  A moment ago you denied they were derived at all!
Um, no? Not at all?
Again, my objection is you saying that 'mass exerts a gravitational force' was somehow derived by Einstein. he did not derive that, he took it as a premise. That's what I said. That's what I've been saying a ridiculous number of times. Don't accuse me of not understanding when you aren't grasping that and when you need to outright lie about what I said.

Quote
If you don’t use the fundamental property of mass, his equations are not valid.  Substituting another property is a contradiction.  Do you understand this yet?
And his equations are valid when that property of mass does hold, but when it does not, then only the select few that mention mass become invalid. Yep. I agree, I've always agreed, none of that precludes only some masses exerting gravity. So, again, why does that matter?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on August 05, 2019, 09:20:25 AM
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
But you do have a magic dark energy that uniformly accelerates the flat earth and celestial bodies.  You have a magic medium that refracts light the wrong way in order to explain the rising an setting of the celestial bodies.  You have a magic body that comes between the sun and moon to cause lunar eclipses.  Should I go on?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 05, 2019, 09:48:02 AM
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
But you do have a magic dark energy that uniformly accelerates the flat earth and celestial bodies.  You have a magic medium that refracts light the wrong way in order to explain the rising an setting of the celestial bodies.  You have a magic body that comes between the sun and moon to cause lunar eclipses.  Should I go on?
I'll take magic that accelerates everything uniformly far before I would take energy that accelerates the entire universe at increasing jerk. I'll do the math for you later, but obviously one is larger than the other, and is increasingly larger.

What magic medium are you referring to? What does it mean for something to be 'refracted the wrong way'? Is there a right way? The rising and setting of celestial bodies follows the laws of perspective. No magic necessary.

Lunar eclipses are clearly caused by a natural process on the surface of the moon, hence their regularity and their influence on all life. Again no magic fairies. Moon light is dangerous, a fact known since antiquity, and you'd do well to heed my warnings.

You are getting wildly off topic. We are talking about what makes things fall, or what gravity is - not any kitchen sink topic you might want to drag in unwarrantedly.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Macarios on August 05, 2019, 10:45:28 AM
My question stays:

If one denies gravity as "magic, because it acts at a distance", then how one accepts electrostatic forces and magnetic forces?
They also act at a distance.

On the other hand, pushing the key on keyboard with your finger also acts at a distance.
The only difference is that the molecular distance between the key cap and your finger
is much shorter than between the balls in recreation of Cavendish experiment,
or between poles inside electric motor,
or between leaves inside an electroscope.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 05, 2019, 10:59:10 AM
LOL.  A moment ago you denied they were derived at all!
Um, no? Not at all?
Again, my objection is you saying that 'mass exerts a gravitational force' was somehow derived by Einstein. he did not derive that, he took it as a premise. That's what I said. That's what I've been saying a ridiculous number of times. Don't accuse me of not understanding when you aren't grasping that and when you need to outright lie about what I said.

No, I’ve been saying that he derived his field equations from Newton’s gravitation, which uses mass, so the property of mass is fundamentally built into the whole thing.

If we got our wires crossed on that, it goes both ways.  This comment of yours, was not entirely clear.

Quote
Again, he did not derive it, he assumed it.

I apologize for my part of the misunderstanding, but I did not deliberately lie about what you said.

Quote
Quote
If you don’t use the fundamental property of mass, his equations are not valid.  Substituting another property is a contradiction.  Do you understand this yet?
And his equations are valid when that property of mass does hold, but when it does not, then only the select few that mention mass become invalid. Yep. I agree, I've always agreed, none of that precludes only some masses exerting gravity. So, again, why does that matter?

Because if we switch the property of mass to something else, we’re not starting from Newton’s gravity, but from something else, (say electromagnetic attraction). So we’ll end up with a different equation.  That’s been my basic point, that we can’t just substitute one thing for another and expect the equations to work.

You keep talking about a particular property of mass, which is very confusing.  Do you mean some unknown property of matter?

I’m talking about mass, the basic unit quantity. 
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2019, 11:15:12 AM
You keep talking about a particular property of mass, which is very confusing.  Do you mean some unknown property of matter?

I’m talking about mass, the basic unit quantity.
How is it confusing? We're talking about FET, not everything is going to be the exact same between models, and like I've been saying several times over, the general idea behind celestial gravitation is that mass does not always exert a gravitational force; this is unproven, certainly, but equally it has only been assumed that it is not the case. When it does, you can take m as per normal in Einstein's equations. When it does not, then most of SR and such is going to still function just fine, but when you get to GR then the specifically gravitational bits will fail. Like, seriously, what about this has merited so much barely-relevant debate?
We are still talking about mass as the factor in Einstein's equations, the same way we still talk about velocity between both Newton and SR. In specific situations, yes different behaviour dominates, but unless you're in those situations you don't really need to account for it.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 05, 2019, 11:34:49 AM
My question stays:

If one denies gravity as "magic, because it acts at a distance", then how one accepts electrostatic forces and magnetic forces?
They also act at a distance.

On the other hand, pushing the key on keyboard with your finger also acts at a distance.
The only difference is that the molecular distance between the key cap and your finger
is much shorter than between the balls in recreation of Cavendish experiment,
or between poles inside electric motor,
or between leaves inside an electroscope.
Electromagnetism is communicated via photons.

Gravity has no such discovered 'particle'.

Can you support why gravity is a fundamental force? This is only one methodology in use today (and the past) and I haven't seen it been supported here, yet I see the term 'fundamental force' being thrown around like someone just opened up their high school physics text books for the first time.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 05, 2019, 01:48:12 PM
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument.
Except plenty of FEers do do that. So I wouldn't call that a strawman.

Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism
I provided a mechanism. You dismissed it as magic.

A rational assumption would be one that makes use of deductive logic.
No, that would be a rational conclusion based upon deductive logic.

one which you cannot logically support.
You mean one which cannot be supported via logical deduction, which itself can only be supported via inductive reasoning.

Can you prove logical deduction works, rather than simply assuming it does? Remember, to do that you can't use it.

Using inductive reasoning doesn't make something irrational.

Incorrect. Logic is an internally self consistent system which includes deductive logic.
No, I was completely correct.
Something being internally self consistent is not proof that it works.
Deductive logic cannot be justified without something else to justify it.
So no, from a purely logical point of view NOTHING can be proven, as you first need to be able to prove that you can prove anything, which requires already proving that.
If you would like to disagree, feel free to prove you can use deductive reasoning, without just assuming you can.

A distortion which is communicated how?
Again, the exact same argument applies to every fundamental force.

I guess if it was a straw man, it did make you look arrogant and stupid. However, it was not. You just don't know what the word rational means.
No, it was a strawman. I know what rational means.
It does not require it to be propped up by deductive reasoning.
Something backed by inductive reasoning is rational as well.

Such as known gravitational anomalies.
What anomalies?
Just appealing to "known" ones doesn't show that any are known.
Can you provide a single example?

Perhaps this is fair. However, the incoherencies and falsifications of your model are well known to any that choose not to turn a blind eye to them.
You mean to those that want to invent them.
Meanwhile the ones present in FE are known to anyone that spent more than 5 minutes honestly, and rationally thinking about it.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 05, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Saying its a fundamental force and hand waving doesn't do either side any favors.
It points out that it is a fundamental aspect of reality, just like the other fundamental forces.
Rejecting gravity, but not other forces like the electromagnetism shows you are simply cherry picking what you want to discard.

As you likely know, Dark Energy causes the earth to accelerate. And it does so in a much more reasonable way than the magical round earth "dark energy."
No, it does so in an extremely unreasonable way as it has significant anisotropy.

The mainstream dark energy acts in all directions equally as expanding space.
No one will feel the force of dark energy accelerating them. Instead it is observed in an increase in the distance between 2 objects.

Meanwhile, your idea of dark energy for the UA is to accelerate Earth in a particular direction for no apparent reason (note: it is the directionality I am pointing out has no justification here), as well as the objects significantly above Earth, accelerating them at the same rate, in the same direction, but then not the objects just above Earth.

It has not been observed between any two masses. That is an outright lie.
No it isn't, that is again a misrepresentation of what I have said.
All tests for gravity between 2 masses, which is actually capable of detecting that force, has.

You are trying to bundle up the moving planets in your model which seem to work at a distance squared, and the fact things fall. These are of course two separate phenomena and you have done absolutely nothing to show otherwise.
It is your assertion that they are 2 separate phenomena.
The moving planets accelerating at a rate inversely proportional to the distance squared, rather than based upon the properties of the planets matches quite well with objects on Earth falling, which when you remove factors such as drag and buoyancy, accelerate the same regardless of the properties of the materials shows they are almost certainly connected.
Especially considering we have also put satellites in orbit around Earth, which also accelerate around Earth not based upon the properties of the satellite.

If its a fundamental force, what is its carrier? How can we directly observe it, without presuming its existence?
How can you directly observe any force?

It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
No, objecting to a particular of RE which you deem to be magic doesn't mean that FE relies upon less magic.
You need to focus on all the "magic" that each side has.
You still have the same kind of magic, but even more magical, with the highly directional (magic) highly selective (magic) universal accelerator.
So on that point alone, you have more magic.
But then as you have discarded gravity, you then need to appeal to more magic to explain how the celestial objects appear to move.
Then you need to throw in more magic to explain their apparent position which simply doesn't work for a FE without light magically bending to make it look just like it should for a RE.
Then you need to throw in more magic to explain what RE attributes to the rotation of Earth, happening on Earth, such as the rotation of large scale weather systems, Foucault's pendulum and laser ring gyroscopes.
Then you need some more to explain how satellites are faked, including satellite based GPS and TV.
Then you need some more to explain how distance works.

So no, even if you want to say RE relies upon magic to explain the expansion of the universe, FE still relies upon far more magic.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 05, 2019, 04:12:36 PM
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument.
Except plenty of FEers do do that. So I wouldn't call that a strawman.
How does a great number of any type of person taking upon a logical fallacy make it not a logical fallacy? That in itself is a fallacy. So you have now justified one fallacy by bringing on board another. If you were on an intellectual boat, you'd be desperately pouring bucket by bucket out rather than plugging the hole first.

Quote
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism
I provided a mechanism. You dismissed it as magic.
I must have missed it. How again does it cause space to curve? Also, I'd still love to know why you think science deals in such matters, when its clear it doesn't.

Quote
A rational assumption would be one that makes use of deductive logic.
No, that would be a rational conclusion based upon deductive logic.
Inductive logic is informal logic, and empirical thought embraces that.

Deductive logic is formally valid logic, and rationalism embraces that.

It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is rational.

You are either completely ignorant of what you speak of, or are purposefully being difficult. A rational conclusion, clearly by definition, is one based off deductive logic. If you are widening this definition to include informal logic, you are doing so by the blessing of those you are arguing against or showing it to be the case.

We give no such blessing of ignorance.

One of these two types of logical is formally valid, the other when attempted to prove it leads to infinite regression. They also behave differently.

Quote
one which you cannot logically support.
You mean one which cannot be supported via logical deduction, which itself can only be supported via inductive reasoning.
No I mean what I said. There is no known way to support inductive reasoning logically as shown by Popper, Hume, and countless others. You cannot support inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning as this just introduces yet another layer that must be justified by yet another inductive principle, which then has to be justified and so on ad infinitum.

More than this, one can disprove inductive reasoning quite easily in every day life, by example.

Quote

Can you prove logical deduction works, rather than simply assuming it does? Remember, to do that you can't use it.
Can you provide justification for your bold claim that I can't use deductive logic to prove deductive logic?

Quote
Using inductive reasoning doesn't make something irrational.
It does and I have shown, or at least cited, why.

Quote
Incorrect. Logic is an internally self consistent system which includes deductive logic.
No, I was completely correct.
Something being internally self consistent is not proof that it works.
Deductive logic cannot be justified without something else to justify it.
So no, from a purely logical point of view NOTHING can be proven, as you first need to be able to prove that you can prove anything, which requires already proving that.
If you would like to disagree, feel free to prove you can use deductive reasoning, without just assuming you can.
And now you are begging the question. I'm not sure you should really be a "voice of reason" if you make use of such fallacies at such a whim.

Quote
A distortion which is communicated how?
Again, the exact same argument applies to every fundamental force.
No it isn't. Have you ever heard of photons? Do you even know what the fundamental forces are?

Quote
I guess if it was a straw man, it did make you look arrogant and stupid. However, it was not. You just don't know what the word rational means.
No, it was a strawman. I know what rational means.
It does not require it to be propped up by deductive reasoning.
Something backed by inductive reasoning is rational as well.
Not in the way the big boys are talking about. If you wish to try to use a minced layman definition of a word to try to prove your point, you are welcome to make yourself a fool.

Quote
Such as known gravitational anomalies.
What anomalies?
Just appealing to "known" ones doesn't show that any are known.
Can you provide a single example?
They are known well enough, and have been talked to here so many times I properly assumed them to be fair game. Just like I won't cite that the sky is blue, I refuse to accept you believe or wish to lay your argument upon the flimsy grounds that there are no examples.

I apologize for my use of the term "gravitational anomaly" rather than "gravity anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly)" if that is what you are harping on.

Quote
Perhaps this is fair. However, the incoherencies and falsifications of your model are well known to any that choose not to turn a blind eye to them.
You mean to those that want to invent them.
Meanwhile the ones present in FE are known to anyone that spent more than 5 minutes honestly, and rationally thinking about it.
No, they are well known to those actually working in the field that believe in a round earth.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Macarios on August 05, 2019, 08:05:58 PM
My question stays:

If one denies gravity as "magic, because it acts at a distance", then how one accepts electrostatic forces and magnetic forces?
They also act at a distance.

On the other hand, pushing the key on keyboard with your finger also acts at a distance.
The only difference is that the molecular distance between the key cap and your finger
is much shorter than between the balls in recreation of Cavendish experiment,
or between poles inside electric motor,
or between leaves inside an electroscope.
Electromagnetism is communicated via photons.

Gravity has no such discovered 'particle'.

Can you support why gravity is a fundamental force? This is only one methodology in use today (and the past) and I haven't seen it been supported here, yet I see the term 'fundamental force' being thrown around like someone just opened up their high school physics text books for the first time.

Saved by the bell photon. :)

Do you know what photons really are and why they say that light is dualistic in nature?

Please tell us how "chain of photons" can drag two magnetic pieces towards each other.

Or two charged particles?
If they are both positive then "stream of photons" push them away from each other?
If they are one positive and one negative, then "stream of photons" goes behind them and pushes them towards each other?

Photon is quantum of energy that can act as a particle in certain conditions.
You can find some similarity in ball lightning, but not much.

Or some vague analogy with smoke ring:

(https://cdn9.dissolve.com/p/D30_22_697/D30_22_697_1200.jpg)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 06, 2019, 03:25:03 AM
How does a great number of any type of person taking upon a logical fallacy make it not a logical fallacy?
I never said it didn't.
My point was a lot of FEers reject gravity, replace it with UA and then still appeal to gravity in the form of celestial gravity.
So it isn't a strawman.
The only part that comes close is the ending where they say they can't use it as it would make Earth a sphere.

I must have missed it. How again does it cause space to curve?
So you are asking for a mechanism for the mechanism.

Inductive logic is informal logic, and empirical thought embraces that.
And that doesn't make it irrational.
It is still a form of reasoning, and thus something being backed up by it is still rational.

It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is rational.
No, you have it the wrong way around.
It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is irrational.

You are yet to provide any justification for that.

You are either completely ignorant of what you speak of, or are purposefully being difficult.
Good job projecting.

A rational conclusion
Again, I said a rational assumption, not conclusion.

is one based off deductive logic.
No, that would be a deductive conclusion.
There is nothing in the definition of rational which requires it to use deductive reasoning.

One of these two types of logical is formally valid, the other when attempted to prove it leads to infinite regression.
Again, care to provide a proof that deductive reasoning works, without the same infinite regress?

Can you provide justification for your bold claim that I can't use deductive logic to prove deductive logic?
Because that is circular reasoning.
You are assuming deductive logic works to try and prove deductive logic works.

That is no better than using inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning works.

So do you have any proof that deductive reasoning works, without first assuming it does?

Quite the double standard you have.
You reject justifying inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning but are happy to do so for deductive reasoning.
Why?

It does and I have shown, or at least cited, why.
No, you have just asserted it and tried to equate rational to based upon deductive reasoning.

And now you are begging the question.
Not in the slightest.
I am merely pointing out that if you honest followed what you preached you would accept nothing as proven and know that nothing can be proven (including that nothing can be proven), and as such wouldn't even bring it up as a point in an argument.

No it isn't. Have you ever heard of photons?
Yes I have.
How are photons generated?
A nice simple case of an electron being moved from point A to point B, just once.
How does in generate photons to affect the electromagnetic field?
What is the mechanism behind it?
How does this photon then cause other charges to move?
Again, the same, or equivalent, questions apply to the other fundamental forces as well.

They are known well enough
The ones where they are just anomolies from a simple model based upon incomplete information rather than a contradiction of the model are well known.
For example, a variation in the gravity of Earth from what is predicted from a simple ellipsoid.
But you made it clear that is not what you were talking about.
The only thing which comes close to that is galactic rotation curves, but you said it was here on Earth, so that rules that out.

So just what anomalies are you talking about?

Just like I won't cite that the sky is blue
That is vastly different to an alleged gravitational anomaly.
Everyone can go outside on a near daily basis and observe that the sky appears to be blue.
They cannot do this for gravitational anomalies.
It would be more akin to citing that the average distance between the sun and Earth is a particular value.

I apologize for my use of the term "gravitational anomaly" rather than "gravity anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly)" if that is what you are harping on.
So you didn't even bother reading past the first line?
Quote
Typically the model is based on simplifying assumptions, such as that, under its self-gravitation and rotational motion, the planet assumes the figure of an ellipsoid of revolution. Gravity on the surface of this ellipsoid is then given by a simple formula which only contains the latitude, and subtraction from observed gravity in the same location will yield the gravity anomaly.
So just like I said, a variation from a simple model with no indication it lies outside the uncertainty range as it does not include the distribution of all the mass in the object.

If you have an example of an actual gravitational anomaly on Earth, where the prediction of gravity is actually wrong, rather than a simplified prediction being wrong, feel free to provide it.
Until then I see no reason to foolishly accept it.

No, they are well known to those actually working in the field that believe in a round earth.
Again, any justification?
Or is this again just focusing on the simplifications of the model?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 06, 2019, 10:30:56 AM
You keep talking about a particular property of mass, which is very confusing.  Do you mean some unknown property of matter?

I’m talking about mass, the basic unit quantity.
How is it confusing?  We're talking about FET, not everything is going to be the exact same between models, and like I've been saying several times over, the general idea behind celestial gravitation is that mass does not always exert a gravitational force;

Yes, thank you.  I get that.

It’s confusing because you seem unwilling to clarify if you are talking about different types of matter or different types of mass.  It’s an important distinction, because matter has many properties, one of which being mass.

As mass is such a fundamental property, having different types would be kind of a big deal.

Quote
this is unproven, certainly, but equally it has only been assumed that it is not the case.

Seriously?  There’s nothing equal between the two.

Quote
When it does, you can take m as per normal in Einstein's equations. When it does not, then most of SR and such is going to still function just fine, but when you get to GR then the specifically gravitational bits will fail.

If you can take a stab about what the differences are between your different “masses”, then we can look into how “normal” things might work. 

Quote
Like, seriously, what about this has merited so much barely-relevant debate?

Have you asked yourself the same question?  We’re both debating, but only one of us is complaining that we are debating. 

I’m curious how you think this might be made to work.  You don’t have to reply if you don’t want to.

Quote
We are still talking about mass as the factor in Einstein's equations, the same way we still talk about velocity between both Newton and SR. In specific situations, yes different behaviour dominates, but unless you're in those situations you don't really need to account for it.

Oh, no.  That is totally different.

Special relativity incorporates  Newtonian mechanics.  We can talk about relativistic velocity and non relativistic velocity, but that just distinguishes whether the effect is significant or not.  Plug the numbers into the equations and see what effect it has. 

Velocity is just distance over time.  There aren’t different types of velocity to choose between in appling special relativity.  Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2019, 11:02:28 AM
Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.
I seriously don't get what your issue is. The idea that the equations governing relativity are basically just a simplified version of an as-yet unknown, more complex but more encompassing system of equations is about as far from a niche, hardline FE-conspiracy theorist claim as you could possibly get. I'm not 'complaining we're debating,' I'm just baffled why you spent so long objecting to this without bothering to give an actual reason why.

As far as properties of mass/properties of matter, that's getting into borderline semantic territory. Some have it so that only some mass exerts gravity, so while the force depends on mass, it is not synonymous with mass but that does get lumped in with what element it is (hence why lead exerts it for Cavendish, for example), the more developed tend to have it be an interaction of mass, so that mass will act different when subject to certain specific situations. I've seen it go a few ways if you actually want to discuss it, but none of that is actually relevant to the points you've made so far as Einstein's equations would remain basically a limiting case, the same way Newton is essentially a limiting case for Einstein; when the change in velocity is small, relativistic velocity addition basically simplifies to Newtonian. Equally, when the effect of the electric field is small/the element is the right one/the torsion of subquark strings is in the right direction, it simplifies to basic attractive gravity.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 06, 2019, 03:18:25 PM
Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.
I seriously don't get what your issue is. The idea that the equations governing relativity are basically just a simplified version of an as-yet unknown, more complex but more encompassing system of equations is about as far from a niche, hardline FE-conspiracy theorist claim as you could possibly get. I'm not 'complaining we're debating,' I'm just baffled why you spent so long objecting to this without bothering to give an actual reason why.

As far as properties of mass/properties of matter, that's getting into borderline semantic territory. Some have it so that only some mass exerts gravity, so while the force depends on mass, it is not synonymous with mass but that does get lumped in with what element it is (hence why lead exerts it for Cavendish, for example), the more developed tend to have it be an interaction of mass, so that mass will act different when subject to certain specific situations. I've seen it go a few ways if you actually want to discuss it, but none of that is actually relevant to the points you've made so far as Einstein's equations would remain basically a limiting case, the same way Newton is essentially a limiting case for Einstein; when the change in velocity is small, relativistic velocity addition basically simplifies to Newtonian. Equally, when the effect of the electric field is small/the element is the right one/the torsion of subquark strings is in the right direction, it simplifies to basic attractive gravity.
Therefore The Flat Earth Society in inconsistent in using Einstein's Equivalence Principle to support Universal Acceleration.
But they are inconsistent about many things, so who Cares?

All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!

Now, go jump in the lake!

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2019, 03:57:34 PM
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated. The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
You're the one that feels the need to lie to defend a completely irrelevant claim, and resurrect it as part of a different discussion being had with a different user, but whatever.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 06, 2019, 04:25:24 PM
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated.
What is the difference?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2019, 04:35:34 PM
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated.
What is the difference?
The source of the force. Do you have a point?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 06, 2019, 06:14:53 PM
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated.
What is the difference?
The source of the force. Do you have a point?
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
  • The Flat Earth Society's Universal Acceleration is stated to rely on Einstein's Equivalence Principle.
  • Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that Gravitational mass is identical to Inertial Mass.
  • Therefore all Inertial Mass is Gravitational Mass.
  • All mass is Inertial Mass because that is one definition of mass.
  • You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass.
  • Earthly mass is Inertial Mass otherwise it would not be mass.
  • Therefore Earthly mass is also Gravitational Mass.
  • Hence to be consistent the Earth should also exert gravitational.
Therefore The Flat Earth Society in inconsistent in using Einstein's Equivalence Principle to support Universal Acceleration.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 07, 2019, 04:27:56 AM
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.

So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 07, 2019, 05:54:34 AM
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.
What semantic trickery where I swap definitions in step 5?
What is invalid about "You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass."

I repeat! Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 07, 2019, 06:11:29 AM
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.
What semantic trickery where I swap definitions in step 5?
What is invalid about "You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass."

I repeat! Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The bit where start saying that EEP gives a damn what the source of gravity is. Nothing about the Equivalence Principle cares whether mass is the cause of gravity. Absolutely nothing. You refusing to even acknowledge that is pathetic even by your standards. Mass is a measure of resistance to acceleration; the EEP states that the resistance to acceleration caused by inertia, and by gravity, are identical. You flip-flopping to say it's talking about mass exerting gravity rather than mass subject to it remains as rubbish as it was the first time you said it. Not that I expect you to even acknowledge me saying that this time given you ignore it even when you quote it. Jesus christ.

I pointed out your lie. Repeating the question won't change the answer. If you aren't swapping definitions, then your step one is: "Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that mass that exerts gravity is identical to Inertial Mass."
Please. Tell me how that follows from it. I've aksed you that so many times before, I wonder if you'll even bother answering this time.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 07, 2019, 08:17:07 AM
Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.
I seriously don't get what your issue is. The idea that the equations governing relativity are basically just a simplified version of an as-yet unknown, more complex but more encompassing system of equations is about as far from a niche, hardline FE-conspiracy theorist claim as you could possibly get. I'm not 'complaining we're debating,' I'm just baffled why you spent so long objecting to this without bothering to give an actual reason why.

As far as properties of mass/properties of matter, that's getting into borderline semantic territory. Some have it so that only some mass exerts gravity, so while the force depends on mass, it is not synonymous with mass but that does get lumped in with what element it is (hence why lead exerts it for Cavendish, for example), the more developed tend to have it be an interaction of mass, so that mass will act different when subject to certain specific situations. I've seen it go a few ways if you actually want to discuss it, but none of that is actually relevant to the points you've made so far as Einstein's equations would remain basically a limiting case, the same way Newton is essentially a limiting case for Einstein; when the change in velocity is small, relativistic velocity addition basically simplifies to Newtonian. Equally, when the effect of the electric field is small/the element is the right one/the torsion of subquark strings is in the right direction, it simplifies to basic attractive gravity.

My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einstein’s equations for General Relativity sectively, when you don’t even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you can’t even define the basic parameters you want to use?

It’s particularly weird, because you want to apply it to both celestial gravitation and lead balls (in the Cavendish experiment), but not other Earthly masses.  Lead, dug out of the ground, seems pretty Earthly to me (other materials have also been used, btw).  So I’m guessing there’s nothing particularly exotic about “celestial gravitation”?

The REALLY big thing though, which I mentioned earlier and you didn’t address, is that in Einstein’s field equations mass affects spacetime snd spacetime affects mass.  It’s a two way interaction.  You can run the equations in both directions.

You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so it’s fundamentally different.

More generally, my issue is with trying to shoehorn Einstein’s work into flat earth ideas, without grounds.  There’s no theoretical justification for this, nor one single tiny scrap of evidence to back it up. 

You think you can just say that there’s more complex equations that simplify down to gravitation under some circumstances.  Yet you don’t have the first clue what those higher equations might be.  So how can you possibly assert how they simplify?  It’s just total bullshit.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 07, 2019, 08:32:27 AM
My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einstein’s equations for General Relativity sectively, when you don’t even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you can’t even define the basic parameters you want to use?
The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture. We already know it works fine in certain conditions, and that gets conceded by people who'd argue in this direction. Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?
Like, what you're arguing is that despite all the experiments and tests, we should reject Einstein's equations in totality just because there are super-niche circumstances where they might not hold. This isn't an FE-only position, it's basically the mainstream point of view, and your argument is that incomplete=wrong. That's just silly. Nothing about what I'm saying, beyond the one specific application which is irrelevant to most of your response, is outside of accepted scientific fact. Relativity does not explain everything, scientists are trying to combine it with quantum theory etc, they don't yet have the final formula but that doesn't mean quantum theory and relativity are inherently wrong. That just doesn't make sense. We know they're not for separate reasons.

Quote
You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so it’s fundamentally different.
And still simplifies. Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity. How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you? Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth? Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion? Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
Yes, it is different. No one's saying it isn't different. I didn't address that when you said it before because there's really nothing to address, it doesn't matter. Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then. Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case, but that's not an argument. You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 08, 2019, 03:05:42 AM
My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einstein’s equations for General Relativity sectively, when you don’t even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you can’t even define the basic parameters you want to use?
The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture. We already know it works fine in certain conditions, and that gets conceded by people who'd argue in this direction.

By “we”, I assume you mean everyone bar most flat earthers. “Conceded” is hardly the word I’d use.

Quote
Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?

Of course not.  But as you feel the need to keep reminding me, things have to be different for a flat earth UA model.

So what observational evidence for gravitation in real science do you need to incorporate into the gravitational part of the UA model?

1.  That things fall down?  Obviously not, the primary cause for that is allegedly UA.  But you do want a small adjustment to the value.  Somehow.

2.  Newton’s original evidence of the orbits of moons around planets, and planets around the sun?   Nope.

3.  The orbital mechanics of artificial satellites and spacecraft?  No.  They either don’t exist or have to be very different.

4.  Gravitational lensing around massive objects, such as an 860 000 mile diameter sun 93 million miles away?  Oh, hell no.  Small sun, doing weird spirals, remember?

5.  The Cavendish Experiment?  OK, you want that.

6.  UA doesn’t even agree with what most astronomical observations even are. 

7.  You might want to use “celestial gravitation” to explain the apparent motion of stars, via something like “celestial gears”, but that looks nothing like either Newtonian gravity or GR. And let’s be honest isn’t what anyone sees anyway.

So your basic starting position looks nothing like GR anyway.  I’m not even sure why you’d want to include it?  It looks a lot like trying to just use Einstein’s name to add faux credibility to the argument.

Quote
Like, what you're arguing is that despite all the experiments and tests, we should reject Einstein's equations in totality just because there are super-niche circumstances where they might not hold.  This isn't an FE-only position, it's basically the mainstream point of view, and your argument is that incomplete=wrong. That's just silly.

No, I’m not.  When did I say that? 

Einstein actually had equations that showed how they incorporated Newtonian gravity, and then we got evidence to verify them.  Like Newton, he actually did the work.

The woolly ideas of flat earthers have no equations and so far are contrary to the available evidence.

Quote
Nothing about what I'm saying, beyond the one specific application which is irrelevant to most of your response, is outside of accepted scientific fact.

Except your attempt to shoehorn it into entirely unscientific flat earth models.

Quote
Relativity does not explain everything, scientists are trying to combine it with quantum theory etc, they don't yet have the final formula but that doesn't mean quantum theory and relativity are inherently wrong. That just doesn't make sense. We know they're not for separate reasons.

Just because real scientists are trying to find a theory for quantum gravity (and they may never succeed), does not mean you can assume Einstein’s equations can neatly fit into whatever you want.  It has to be demonstrated.

Quote
Quote
You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so it’s fundamentally different.
And still simplifies. Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity. How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you? Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth? Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion? Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
Yes, it is different. No one's saying it isn't different. I didn't address that when you said it before because there's really nothing to address, it doesn't matter. Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then. Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case, but that's not an argument. You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.

Of course it’s a problem.  But having a problem does not necessarily mean saying there is no possible solution.  Solving problems is what science is all about.

But you just assert that general relativity can be made to fit into flat earth ideas with the flimsiest of arguments.  You say things like “it doesn’t matter” in the place where the work should be.

Especially considering my earlier part about what observations and evidence you actually need to fit it to, it makes little sense to even try to incorporate general relativity.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Empirical on August 08, 2019, 03:40:35 AM
"Photons cause electromagnetism"

Ha LOL. That's hilarious. Actually try learning quantum mechanics, you'll find out that's not the case at all.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 08, 2019, 04:20:40 AM
By “we”, I assume you mean everyone bar most flat earthers. “Conceded” is hardly the word I’d use.
No, I mean FEers, the ones that would actually argue down this line based on the 'gravity does exist, but isn't universal' approach. Thinking I mean the exact opposite of what I explicitly said might be your problem.

Quote
Quote
Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?

Of course not.  But as you feel the need to keep reminding me, things have to be different for a flat earth UA model.

So what observational evidence for gravitation in real science do you need to incorporate into the gravitational part of the UA model?
Well that's a misrepresentation if I ever saw one. We're talking GR, not gravity. Even if we'd never observed orbits, space travel, gravitational waves... we've had plenty of experimental verification of relativity. Hafele-Keating's the classic. Yes, relativity has knock-on effects used to explain other observations, but those aren't what matter, Newton had an answer to them even if it wasn't complete, and given it's still not complete after Einstein it's a bit weird to insist on tying it to relativity. The concept of mass exerting gravity is not Einstein's. He formalised the mathematical effect of it, but that was only by looking at it through the lens of applying SR to acceleration via the EEP. Our current understanding of gravity is just an application of the actual process of GR, and that's what we have solid evidence of.


Quote
Of course it’s a problem.  But having a problem does not necessarily mean saying there is no possible solution.  Solving problems is what science is all about.

But you just assert that general relativity can be made to fit into flat earth ideas with the flimsiest of arguments.  You say things like “it doesn’t matter” in the place where the work should be.
So your argument is 'it's incomplete, like everything.' You haven't given contradictions, incongruities, you've just given bits that could be fleshed out but still make sense. Kinda worthless for this thread.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 08, 2019, 04:41:57 AM
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.
What semantic trickery where I swap definitions in step 5?
What is invalid about "You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass."

I repeat! Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The bit where start saying that EEP gives a damn what the source of gravity is. Nothing about the Equivalence Principle cares whether mass is the cause of gravity.
Where did I claim that EEP even mentions the "source of gravity"?
All I quoted about the EEP is exactly what is given as the definition of the EEP! "Inertial mass is identical to Gravitational  mass".

So, I repeat , please point out which of the following njmbered points is incorrect and why.Surely you cannot object to "Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass"!
If a "mass exerts gravitation" it must be a "Gravitational Mass", otherwise the words have no meaning.

Maybe I could reword (5) as:
"5) You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation. Hence I claim that Celestial mass must be Gravitational Mass".
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 08, 2019, 05:01:16 AM
Where did I claim that EEP even mentions the "source of gravity"?
...
If a "mass exerts gravitation" it must be a "Gravitational Mass", otherwise the words have no meaning.
This is just pathetic even by your standards. Like I said, semantic trickery and outright lies.
The words have plenty of meaning. It means 'mass subject to gravity' in the context in which you first use it, as has already been pointed out to you and as you full well know, but then you conveniently change it to 'mass exerting gravity' with no explanation and the frantic hope I'm just going to get bored of calling you out.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 08, 2019, 05:50:22 AM
By “we”, I assume you mean everyone bar most flat earthers. “Conceded” is hardly the word I’d use.
No, I mean FEers, the ones that would actually argue down this line based on the 'gravity does exist, but isn't universal' approach. Thinking I mean the exact opposite of what I explicitly said might be your problem.

Or you could be clearer about who “we” refers to.  Especially when preceded by something like “The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture.”, which appears to mean people in general.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?

Of course not.  But as you feel the need to keep reminding me, things have to be different for a flat earth UA model.

So what observational evidence for gravitation in real science do you need to incorporate into the gravitational part of the UA model?

Well that's a misrepresentation if I ever saw one.

Yes, you clearly misrepresented my argument.

Quote
We're talking GR, not gravity.

Say what now?  General relativity is the geometric theory of gravity, derived from special relativity and Newton’s law of gravitation.  How can we talk about general relativity without talking about gravity?

Quote
Even if we'd never observed orbits, space travel, gravitational waves... we've had plenty of experimental verification of relativity. Hafele-Keating's the classic.

Hafele-Keating verifies relativity in two ways.

1.  Time dilation due to velocity, which is a prediction of special relativity.

2.  Time dilation due to gravity.  The EARTH’s gravity.  Under the UA flat earth model, the earth doesn’t have much of gravitational field, remember?  You really want to use this experiment to support UA?

Quote
Yes, relativity has knock-on effects used to explain other observations, but those aren't what matter, Newton had an answer to them even if it wasn't complete, and given it's still not complete after Einstein it's a bit weird to insist on tying it to relativity.

I listed things that are accounted for in general relativity.  Most were also accounted for by Newton.  So what?

The point was what do flat earthers want to use.  I’m pretty damn sure they don’t want to use Newton’s law of gravitation, where mass always attracts mass.  So obviously it matters.

Quote
The concept of mass exerting gravity is not Einstein's. He formalised the mathematical effect of it, but that was only by looking at it through the lens of applying SR to acceleration via the EEP. Our current understanding of gravity is just an application of the actual process of GR, and that's what we have solid evidence of.

Yeah, but it’s what flat earthers don’t want to use, particularly under the UA model.

Why are you appealing to the differences between Newton and Einstein’s theories to defend a model that basically states they were both wrong?

Quote
Quote
Of course it’s a problem.  But having a problem does not necessarily mean saying there is no possible solution.  Solving problems is what science is all about.

But you just assert that general relativity can be made to fit into flat earth ideas with the flimsiest of arguments.  You say things like “it doesn’t matter” in the place where the work should be.
So your argument is 'it's incomplete, like everything.' You haven't given contradictions, incongruities, you've just given bits that could be fleshed out but still make sense. Kinda worthless for this thread.

I listed a whole load of contradictions.  Observations of gravitation that shouldn’t apply to flat earth ideas of universal acceleration, but you didn’t address any of them.

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  They don’t matter, right?

Fail.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 08, 2019, 05:58:26 AM
Where did I claim that EEP even mentions the "source of gravity"?
...
If a "mass exerts gravitation" it must be a "Gravitational Mass", otherwise the words have no meaning.
This is just pathetic even by your standards. Like I said, semantic trickery and outright lies.
What is this "semantic trickery"? I have never anywhere intended any such thing!

And, watch your tongue, thank you, you don't get to call someone a liar just because they disagree with you!

Quote from: Jane
The words have plenty of meaning. It means 'mass subject to gravity' in the context in which you first use it, as has already been pointed out to you and as you full well know, but then you conveniently change it to 'mass exerting gravity' with no explanation and the frantic hope I'm just going to get bored of calling you out.
Surely 'mass subject to gravity' is a 'gravitational mass' and a 'mass exerting gravity' is also a 'gravitational mass' so why the fuss?
Why are you such an obnoxious creature that you think that everyone is out to trick you - I honestly have been trying to explain it as well as possible.

But every time I try to explain it a little differently you accuse me of "semantic trickery and outright lies"!

I guess that you are nothing like Albert Einstein who said 'The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.'
You think that you know everything right now!
And unlike Oscar Wilde who said "I am not young enough to know everything" you are "young enough to know everything"!

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 08, 2019, 06:23:45 AM
And, watch your tongue, thank you, you don't get to call someone a liar just because they disagree with you!
I'm calling you a liar because you are lying. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are ignoring anything that dares contradict you no matter how blatant and frankly I'm sick of it. Your words: "Surely 'mass subject to gravity' is a 'gravitational mass' and a 'mass exerting gravity' is also a 'gravitational mass' so why the fuss?" Straight-up, admitted semantic trickery, switching between definitions to get a completely different end result that doesn't follow under any semblance of logic whatsoever, you admit it and you just don't care. If you don't want to get called a liar, at least try not to make the deceit quite so obvious.
Here's a hint: if you can't make your argument work with just the one definition, it's a bad argument, switching out is what's called 'dishonesty.' Not that I believe for one second that you actually need that explained to you.



Or you could be clearer about who “we” refers to.  Especially when preceded by something like “The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture.”, which appears to mean people in general.
Yes, well obviously people in general, I was calling out you excluding FEers from consideration for no clear reason.

Quote
Hafele-Keating verifies relativity in two ways.
Leaving aside the fact you seem to have forgotten the whole reason why the Equivalence Principle gets mentioned in explanations of UA, that's the point. We have observations that tell us relativity makes accurate predictions. Rejecting it just because we don't have a 100% framework of the world is silly. That's not an FE perspective, that's just regular science.

Quote
The point was what do flat earthers want to use.  I’m pretty damn sure they don’t want to use Newton’s law of gravitation, where mass always attracts mass.  So obviously it matters.
You do realise that this entire conversation has been about FEers who accept that in certain circumstances don't you? Again, just a refinement where there are a couple of other factors, but it's not 'Einstein was wrong!!!!' any more than Einstein proved Newton was wrong. It's "This is a limiting case, relevant in certain situations and approximately accurate in the day-to-day."

Quote
I listed a whole load of contradictions.  Observations of gravitation that shouldn’t apply to flat earth ideas of universal acceleration, but you didn’t address any of them.

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  They don’t matter, right?
Uh, what? You haven't provided contradictions, you've just objected that they can explain it because they do so without a 100% fleshed out model. That's not a contradiction. That's just science. Some FEers do accept gravity, they just don't think all masses exert it, and that answers everything you've proposed that even approaches the status of 'contradiction.' The rest was just you getting mad that they don't think GR is the 100% complete view of the world, and is instead only applicable in certain situations, as a limiting case of a more complex model. Which is... not a controversial opinion in any scientific circles whatsoever. Sure, they take a different way, but this really shouldn't be the hill you want to die on.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 08, 2019, 06:35:54 AM
I was trying to explain it as well as I could.
*Ignoring it when you had it pointed out to you that you were swapping definitions, several times over.
Stop pretending Rab. I don't think you're as stupid as you're acting.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 08, 2019, 07:22:40 AM
Or you could be clearer about who “we” refers to.  Especially when preceded by something like “The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture.”, which appears to mean people in general.
Yes, well obviously people in general, I was calling out you excluding FEers from consideration for no clear reason.

Most flat earthers would be excluded for thinking gravity isn’t a thing at all.  Others might not be.  But as you are keen to point out you aren’t actually a flat earther, so how am I supposed to know who you mean by “we”?

Quote
Quote
Hafele-Keating verifies relativity in two ways.
Leaving aside the fact you seem to have forgotten the whole reason why the Equivalence Principle gets mentioned in explanations of UA, that's the point. We have observations that tell us relativity makes accurate predictions. Rejecting it just because we don't have a 100% framework of the world is silly. That's not an FE perspective, that's just regular science.

Obviously I don’t reject it.  But flat earthers claiming that apparent gravity is mainly due to universal acceleration should reject it, or provide an alternative explanation.

Again, the part of the Hafele-Keating results that apply to gravity SHOULD NOT HAPPEN under universal acceleration.

In fact, no test for general relativity I’ve seen appears compatible with the flat earth UA “model”.

Quote
Quote
The point was what do flat earthers want to use.  I’m pretty damn sure they don’t want to use Newton’s law of gravitation, where mass always attracts mass.  So obviously it matters.
You do realise that this entire conversation has been about FEers who accept that in certain circumstances don't you? Again, just a refinement where there are a couple of other factors, but it's not 'Einstein was wrong!!!!' any more than Einstein proved Newton was wrong. It's "This is a limiting case, relevant in certain situations and approximately accurate in the day-to-day."

Yeah, yeah.  “Refinement” and “limited case”. That can apply if you accept the path of scientific progress in general and build on it.  It doesn’t apply, if you want to toss most of established science out the window.

Quote
Quote
I listed a whole load of contradictions.  Observations of gravitation that shouldn’t apply to flat earth ideas of universal acceleration, but you didn’t address any of them.

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  They don’t matter, right?
Uh, what? You haven't provided contradictions, you've just objected that they can explain it because they do so without a 100% fleshed out model.

The contradiction is you saying that general relativity can apply to universal acceleration nonsense, when all the real world examples of general relativity don’t apply to the UA “model”.  You don’t see a problem with that?  Of course you don’t.

Quote
That's not a contradiction. That's just science. Some FEers do accept gravity, they just don't think all masses exert it, and that answers everything you've proposed that even approaches the status of 'contradiction.' The rest was just you getting mad that they don't think GR is the 100% complete view of the world, and is instead only applicable in certain situations, as a limiting case of a more complex model. Which is... not a controversial opinion in any scientific circles whatsoever. Sure, they take a different way, but this really shouldn't be the hill you want to die on.

“Take a different way”?  LOL.

We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.

Appealing to Einstein’s theories to support this is an insult to Einstein and every other real scientist.  As is your hand wave that flat earthers just don’t have the “complete view”.

Flat Earthers would be better off forgetting about things like the Stress-Energy Tensor, and start with basics like where the sun rises and sets.  You know, like early civilization did.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 08, 2019, 08:32:23 AM
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.
You're now saying that a lot and for the life of me I don't see why. You now appear to be claiming that UA and gravity are contradictory on a fundamental level when the mere existence of the celestial gravitation models says that's rubbish. Getting mad and shouting at the concept of FET doesn't mean you have a point. You're just saying it doesn't work, and complaining when I actually expect you to give a reason beyond 'Well it's different, even if none of the differences contradict the model in any significant capacity.'
Great, you think it's unreasonable, join the club. But when all you do is yell about how ridiculous you find it, the sole achievement of your posts is convincing FEers further that REers are all brainwashed morons incapable of any original thought.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 08, 2019, 08:55:01 AM
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.
You're now saying that a lot and for the life of me I don't see why. You now appear to be claiming that UA and gravity are contradictory on a fundamental level when the mere existence of the celestial gravitation models says that's rubbish.

As far as I am aware, there is no celestial gravitation “model”.  There is little more than the words “celestial gravitation”  as if that actually explains anything.

Prove me wrong! 

Quote
Getting mad and shouting at the concept of FET doesn't mean you have a point. You're just saying it doesn't work, and complaining when I actually expect you to give a reason beyond 'Well it's different, even if none of the differences contradict the model in any significant capacity.'

I’m not mad.  It’s just that flat earthers have nothing to show to justify their claims scientifically.  But for some reason you couch all your defense of it all with what you imagine to be scientific arguments.

Quote
Great, you think it's unreasonable, join the club. But when all you do is yell about how ridiculous you find it, the sole achievement of your posts is convincing FEers further that REers are all brainwashed morons incapable of any original thought.

No.  I make plenty of reasonable points. You ignore them or just say “that doesn’t matter”. 

Now you say I look like a brainwashed moron incapable of any original thought?  Grow up and debate properly.

Here’s a challenge for you:

You claim that general relativity can function as a special case under the flat earth UA model?

Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 08, 2019, 09:04:09 AM
Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.
And that's the problem. You got given them earlier, you just decided that they contradicted what you wanted the model to be, rather than what it actually is. I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion if all you're interested in doing is decrying FET as a crime against god and man. This is a debate forum. I promise you, RET can stand honest comparison.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 08, 2019, 09:17:55 AM
Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.
And that's the problem. You got given them earlier, you just decided that they contradicted what you wanted the model to be, rather than what it actually is. I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion if all you're interested in doing is decrying FET as a crime against god and man. This is a debate forum. I promise you, RET can stand honest comparison.

As I remember, I gave you examples of evidence that should  not apply to UA- gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft.  All of which you need alternative explanations for.  All od which apparently “don’t matter” in your mind.

You suggested Hafele-Keating, which does not appear to fit.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2019, 09:58:51 AM
Quote from: Unconvinced
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.

"The cavemen believed it before science existed so it must be true." I see a flaw there.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 08, 2019, 10:15:14 AM
Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.
And that's the problem. You got given them earlier, you just decided that they contradicted what you wanted the model to be, rather than what it actually is. I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion if all you're interested in doing is decrying FET as a crime against god and man. This is a debate forum. I promise you, RET can stand honest comparison.

As I remember, I gave you examples of evidence that should  not apply to UA- gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft.  All of which you need alternative explanations for.  All od which apparently “don’t matter” in your mind.

You suggested Hafele-Keating, which does not appear to fit.
Well... no. They don't matter to this thread. Most of what you were dragging it to was barely relevant as it was, though it at least had the connection of being tied to celestial gravitation and UA. Those are just wholly separate standalone arguments against FET you brought in to distract. I'm not particularly interested in going over the lengthy outlines of FE models in response to space travel, orbits etc for someone who kicks up this much of a fuss at the concept of gravity not being 100% understood.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on August 08, 2019, 11:19:59 AM
Quote from: Unconvinced
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.

"The cavemen believed it before science existed so it must be true." I see a flaw there.
Yes, it's called a straw man.

Besides, FE'ers often appeal to ancient flat earth cosmologies, so I don't see where you have room to gripe.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 08, 2019, 12:13:29 PM
someone who kicks up this much of a fuss at the concept of gravity not being 100% understood.

I think you might be confusing me with John Davis

;)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 09, 2019, 06:06:59 AM

Well... no. They don't matter to this thread. Most of what you were dragging it to was barely relevant as it was, though it at least had the connection of being tied to celestial gravitation and UA. Those are just wholly separate standalone arguments against FET you brought in to distract. I'm not particularly interested in going over the lengthy outlines of FE models in response to space travel, orbits etc for someone who kicks up this much of a fuss at the concept of gravity not being 100% understood.

OK, Jane, I’ll now explain why the things I listed are relevant. 

First off, let’s forget Einstein for a bit and go back to Newton’s law of gravitation.  In the real world, the effect of gravity is inversely proportional to distance from the center of the Earth, right?  As you gain altitude, the value of g drops, and the rate it drops slows down the higher you go.

Say you want to replace this with just universal acceleration + celestial gravity, you get a different function.  UA provides a constant acceleration component, while celestial gravitation makes up for change wrt altitude.

But wait!  If you want celestial gravitation to function the same way as real gravitation, the rate of change of g should increase with altitude as we get closer to whatever is supposed to be pulling us up.

The function of gravity/acceleration wrt to the earth is no longer inverse square, but a constant minus squared relationship.  A completely different thing.

So, how can flat earthers account for this?

1.  They could devise a new basic relationship for celestial gravitation wrt distance that isn’t inverse square and try to make that fit.  But doing so invalidates your claim that celestial gravitation would same function the same way as real gravitation.

2.  They could introduce new effects and variables and try to balance the functions to match measurements and observations.  Although I’ve never seen even a rough attempt to do so.

3.  They could just reject some or all of the measurements and observations as NASA/Illuminati lies, or whatever. 

And that’s just for acceleration wrt height above the surface.

To form a new hypothesis, the absolute first step must be to decide which observations you are trying to explain in the first place.  Then you need to propose a model that accounts for those observations.   You certainly can’t appeal to evidence and experiments that are completely incompatible with the model you are proposing.

That was the point of my list.  My problem with you saying that celestial gravitation should work the same way as in general relativity is that both the theory and evidence we have for general relativity shouldn’t work the same way under a UA/celestial gravitation model.

There is of course another option, which is what you have gone for so far:

4.  Baselessly claim “it doesn’t matter”, “it’s all been explained a bazillion times” and “REers look like morons incapable of independent thought”.  Translation: you don’t have the first clue how it’s all supposed to work.

So which are you going for?  Pick a number from 1-4.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2019, 06:17:04 AM
OK, Jane, I’ll now explain why the things I listed are relevant. 
By which you mean, make a totally separate argument. Look, if you'd pointed out actual issues with it I wouldn't have bothered posting, but to use your words, your objections were based on "gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft." Not the rate of change of gravity with respect to altitude.
2's the one that follows the easiest from what I've seen. Not surprised you haven't seen it worked on, UA as a whole tends to be a minority opinion here and FEers are hardly interested in sticking around given the quality of debate. 3's done by people who don't appeal to celestial gravitation.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on August 09, 2019, 06:33:29 AM
OK, Jane, I’ll now explain why the things I listed are relevant. 
By which you mean, make a totally separate argument. Look, if you'd pointed out actual issues with it I wouldn't have bothered posting, but to use your words, your objections were based on "gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft." Not the rate of change of gravity with respect to altitude.

Evidence related to some of the things I listed doesn’t seem at all compatible with Flat Earth/UA.  Although as I said, you still need to explain whether they are included in the model or not.

For simplicity, I used a case that we can at least easily compare.  One relevant to YOUR example of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Are you seriously complaining I based my reply on the example you gave me?

Quote
2's the one that follows the easiest from what I've seen. Not surprised you haven't seen it worked on, UA as a whole tends to be a minority opinion here and FEers are hardly interested in sticking around given the quality of debate. 3's done by people who don't appeal to celestial gravitation.

So 2, then.  And have you seen anyone attempting to balance all these different functions to match observations?  I’ve searched and come up with nothing.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2019, 06:37:54 AM
Are you seriously complaining I based my reply on the example you gave me?
I'm not complaining, just pointing out it wasn't exactly showing the things you listed were relevant. It's a decent enough argument, like I said, though less exposing a contradiction and more showing something they'd have to account for with the already-necessarily-different model of gravity. Might be fun to work the numbers to see how the rate-of-decrease from 9.8 exerted by the Earth compares to the rate-of-increase subtracted from a constant acceleration, but don't have the time for that right now.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: MouseWalker on August 09, 2019, 05:46:55 PM
My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einstein’s equations for General Relativity sectively, when you don’t even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you can’t even define the basic parameters you want to use?
The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture. We already know it works fine in certain conditions, and that gets conceded by people who'd argue in this direction. Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?
Like, what you're arguing is that despite all the experiments and tests, we should reject Einstein's equations in totality just because there are super-niche circumstances where they might not hold. This isn't an FE-only position, it's basically the mainstream point of view, and your argument is that incomplete=wrong. That's just silly. Nothing about what I'm saying, beyond the one specific application which is irrelevant to most of your response, is outside of accepted scientific fact. Relativity does not explain everything, scientists are trying to combine it with quantum theory etc, they don't yet have the final formula but that doesn't mean quantum theory and relativity are inherently wrong. That just doesn't make sense. We know they're not for separate reasons.

Quote
You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so it’s fundamentally different.
And still simplifies. Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity. How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you? Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth? Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion? Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
Yes, it is different. No one's saying it isn't different. I didn't address that when you said it before because there's really nothing to address, it doesn't matter. Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then. Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case, but that's not an argument. You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.

Quote
Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity.

Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
you would be moved around with the slightest of the breeze.( No weight to hold you in place.)
Unfortunately FET or RET would make no difference.
I see that there'll be a problem.
What is weight; weight is a measurement, of Force between two objects, and or, that of a third object, in this case; the gases, you, and the earth. The Earth being the most massive, and the most attractive, will defined the weights.
The gases are attracted to earth creating a pressure gradient in witch You stain, you're being solid, real displays any of the gas so you're firmly on the ground.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2019, 05:50:00 PM
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 09, 2019, 06:41:36 PM
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?
You can't stop yourself can you?

But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?

Einstein's Equivalence Principle boils down to "Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass" and all mass is Inertial Mass.

Surely to be "subject to gravity" a mass must be Gravitational Mass and to be "exerting gravity" a mass must be Gravitational Mass.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2019, 06:51:14 PM
But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?
Again? No, I really can't be bothered when you just keep pretending we haven't had the exact same discussion before, and you promptly left purely so you could regurgitate the same exact posts at a later date. Grow up Rab, just grow up. This is far from the first thread where you've pulled this. It doesn't make you look smart or convincing.

You've been called out on your semantic trickery. How about addressing that rather than pretending it never happened, yet again?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: sokarul on August 09, 2019, 06:54:55 PM
Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If you think otherwise please note it will just be an opinion until you provide evidence.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 09, 2019, 07:16:23 PM
But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?
Again?
In other words, you cannot answer a simple question without attacking!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: MouseWalker on August 09, 2019, 09:47:14 PM
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?
Quote
yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way

and I do.

Quote
How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you?
A lot.
Quote
Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth?
yes
Quote
Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion?
yes
Quote
Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
no

Quote
nothing to address, it doesn't matter.
 Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then.
 Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case,
 but that's not an argument.
You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.
this is gibberish to me.

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 10, 2019, 05:49:01 AM
But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?
Again?
In other words, you cannot answer a simple question without attacking!
If your skin is that thin that being called out for your tactics qualifies as 'attacking' to you, either get off the site or stop being so blatantly repetitive. I've answered your question. if you don't want it to be pointed out you're asking the same exact thing and dragging the conversation in circles, *gasp* don't ask the same exact thing! Not hard.

How about you address the flaw (ie: blatant semantic trickery) already pointed out in your argument, as I've asked you to time and time again, rather than playing holier-than-thou and evading for the shallowest of reasons? Or better yet, just stop.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 10, 2019, 03:21:00 PM
I think I understand the issue now.

The idea of the equivalence principle is that an object in a uniform gravitational field is the same as the surroundings accelerating.
This is because you get the same kind of relative acceleration.
The key part I was missing before was the field.
A field accelerates an object based upon the force the field generates and the inertial mass. i.e. a=F/mi.
The force a gravitational field generates is based upon the mass of the object, just like the force an electric field generates is based upon the charge.
i.e. F=k mg.
This means the acceleration due to a gravitational field would be:
a=k mg/mi

In order to have this be the same as just having the surroundings accelerate, this acceleration must be the same for all objects.
This means k mg/mi needs to be constant, and thus mg/mi needs to be constant.

While that doesn't mean that gravitational mass and inertial mass needs to be the same, it does show they need to be proportional.

So the question then is if this gravitational mass should also exert gravity and how strong that would be.
Every known object that is influenced by a force also exerts this force.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 15, 2019, 09:39:17 AM
How does a great number of any type of person taking upon a logical fallacy make it not a logical fallacy?
I never said it didn't.
My point was a lot of FEers reject gravity, replace it with UA and then still appeal to gravity in the form of celestial gravity.
So it isn't a strawman.
The only part that comes close is the ending where they say they can't use it as it would make Earth a sphere.
Got it. You have no basis to call what I did a straw man when in actuality it is the argument held by mainstream science and philosophy of science.

Quote
I must have missed it. How again does it cause space to curve?
So you are asking for a mechanism for the mechanism.
Saying "it causes space to curve" is not a mechanism. Its an effect.

Quote
Inductive logic is informal logic, and empirical thought embraces that.
And that doesn't make it irrational.
It is still a form of reasoning, and thus something being backed up by it is still rational.
If that is your metric for what is 'rational', then 'Gut-Feel' reasoning is 'rational.' If that is the bar round earth science uses, and the one you want to stand behind then fine. Its clearly not though, and everybody here recognizes that.

Quote
It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is rational.
No, you have it the wrong way around.
It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is irrational.

You are yet to provide any justification for that.
I justify it as irrational because of the definition of rationalism versus the definition of empiricism.

Quote
You are either completely ignorant of what you speak of, or are purposefully being difficult.
Good job projecting.
Completely ignorant got it. "Rational" and "Empirical" mean things. Words, as you might be surprised to learn, have meanings.

Quote
A rational conclusion
Again, I said a rational assumption, not conclusion.
Since your definition of rational includes magic thinking, I can't really argue that anything is not rational, making your definition useless.

Quote
is one based off deductive logic.
No, that would be a deductive conclusion.
There is nothing in the definition of rational which requires it to use deductive reasoning.
Not in your definition, as it clearly allows for any type of reasoning, however non-reasonable it is.

Quote
One of these two types of logical is formally valid, the other when attempted to prove it leads to infinite regression.
Again, care to provide a proof that deductive reasoning works, without the same infinite regress?
I'd shudder again to think of what you mean by "works." You are a big boy. You can show deductive reasoning is 'truth preserving', which should be a suitable threshold for any reasonable use.

Quote
Can you provide justification for your bold claim that I can't use deductive logic to prove deductive logic?
Because that is circular reasoning.
You are assuming deductive logic works to try and prove deductive logic works.

That is no better than using inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning works.
It is far better, as it does not lead to infinite regress. It is circular reasoning, but it is not regressive.

Quote
So do you have any proof that deductive reasoning works, without first assuming it does?

Quite the double standard you have.
You reject justifying inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning but are happy to do so for deductive reasoning.
Why?
It is truth preserving. It does not lead to infinite regression. The way you know it "works", by definition, is that it is truth preserving.

You can build the truth tables yourself if you'd like.

Quote

It does and I have shown, or at least cited, why.
No, you have just asserted it and tried to equate rational to based upon deductive reasoning.
By definition, rationalism concerns deductive reasoning.

Quote
And now you are begging the question.
Not in the slightest.
I am merely pointing out that if you honest followed what you preached you would accept nothing as proven and know that nothing can be proven (including that nothing can be proven), and as such wouldn't even bring it up as a point in an argument.
If I followed what I preach, which I do, I'd contend that you can prove things within closed self consistent systems.

Quote
No it isn't. Have you ever heard of photons?
Yes I have.
How are photons generated?
A nice simple case of an electron being moved from point A to point B, just once.
How does in generate photons to affect the electromagnetic field?
What is the mechanism behind it?
How does this photon then cause other charges to move?
Again, the same, or equivalent, questions apply to the other fundamental forces as well.
Never the less, we can observe the photon. We cannot observe the magic fairy particle you propose.

Quote
They are known well enough
The ones where they are just anomolies from a simple model based upon incomplete information rather than a contradiction of the model are well known.
For example, a variation in the gravity of Earth from what is predicted from a simple ellipsoid.
But you made it clear that is not what you were talking about.
The only thing which comes close to that is galactic rotation curves, but you said it was here on Earth, so that rules that out.

So just what anomalies are you talking about?
The ones I previously linked.

Quote
Just like I won't cite that the sky is blue
That is vastly different to an alleged gravitational anomaly.
Everyone can go outside on a near daily basis and observe that the sky appears to be blue.
They cannot do this for gravitational anomalies.
It would be more akin to citing that the average distance between the sun and Earth is a particular value.
They most certainly can for gravity anomalies.

Quote
I apologize for my use of the term "gravitational anomaly" rather than "gravity anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly)" if that is what you are harping on.
So you didn't even bother reading past the first line?
Quote
Typically the model is based on simplifying assumptions, such as that, under its self-gravitation and rotational motion, the planet assumes the figure of an ellipsoid of revolution. Gravity on the surface of this ellipsoid is then given by a simple formula which only contains the latitude, and subtraction from observed gravity in the same location will yield the gravity anomaly.
So just like I said, a variation from a simple model with no indication it lies outside the uncertainty range as it does not include the distribution of all the mass in the object.

If you have an example of an actual gravitational anomaly on Earth, where the prediction of gravity is actually wrong, rather than a simplified prediction being wrong, feel free to provide it.
Until then I see no reason to foolishly accept it.

No, they are well known to those actually working in the field that believe in a round earth.
Again, any justification?
Or is this again just focusing on the simplifications of the model?
I'll provide justification when you justify your assertion that there is a problem of deduction. Show me why it must rely on deduction to prove itself, and then show that this is indeed a recursive relationship that must then be justified again.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 15, 2019, 02:26:42 PM
You have no basis to call what I did a straw man when in actuality it is the argument held by mainstream science and philosophy of science.
No, it isn't an argument held by mainstream science. You already admitted it was a strawman.

I think I will skip over the majority of your strawmen and insults this time.

Saying "it causes space to curve" is not a mechanism. Its an effect.
Good thing I'm not just saying that.
Mass curving space is the mechanism behind what causes objects to fall and appear to be attracted to one another.
Yes, it is an effect itself, and could have a mechanism behind it.
But that applies for all mechanisms.
You can always try to go one step deeper.

If that is your metric for what is 'rational', then 'Gut-Feel' reasoning is 'rational.'
There is no "gut feel reasoning"

There is inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

I justify it as irrational because of the definition of rationalism versus the definition of empiricism.
So no justification at all then.
Again, the definition you want to look at is rational, not rationalism.

You can show deductive reasoning is 'truth preserving', which should be a suitable threshold for any reasonable use.
Again, prove it.
So far all we have are your empty words asserting that it works, but no actual proof.
Please show that it is "truth preserving" without using deductive reasoning or any form of reasoning you reject as irrational.

It is far better, as it does not lead to infinite regress. It is circular reasoning, but it is not regressive.
No, it is exactly the same.
You can use inductive reasoning to show inductive reasoning works, just like you can use deductive reasoning to show that deductive reasoning works.
Both are equally circular, relying upon themselves to prove that they work.

If I followed what I preach
No you don't. If you did you wouldn't support being able to know anything at all.

Never the less, we can observe the photon.
Which isn't what I asked for at all.
Again, how are these photons generated?
This is the equivalent of mass bending space time.
If you are happy for photons to just be created without any mechanism for their formation you should be equally happy with mass just bending space time without any mechanism for doing so.

The ones I previously linked.
So not the ones you were claiming existed at all.
Not any that disprove or contradict gravity.
Ones that are entirely consistent with gravity and our limited knowledge of the mass distribution of our planet (or any planet).
So you were lying when you said they did contradict gravity.

They most certainly can for gravity anomalies.
How?
Just how do you think the average person can easily go and detect a gravitational anomaly?

But as you have just established that they are not the ones you were talking about before, and instead are ones which pose no problem for gravity, I guess that is entirely irrelevant.

I'll provide justification when you justify
i.e. you will happily just assert that deductive reasoning works with absolutely no backing to it, while dismissing other forms of reasoning unless they can be proven.

Thanks for yet again showing your double standard.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 15, 2019, 03:20:35 PM
You have no basis to call what I did a straw man when in actuality it is the argument held by mainstream science and philosophy of science.
No, it isn't an argument held by mainstream science. You already admitted it was a strawman.

I contend it is and you haven't shown otherwise.

Quote
I think I will cherry pick arguments now that I've been decimated and refuse to admit it.
Go ahead.

Quote
Saying "it causes space to curve" is not a mechanism. Its an effect.
Good thing I'm not just saying that.
Mass curving space is the mechanism behind what causes objects to fall and appear to be attracted to one another.
Yes, it is an effect itself, and could have a mechanism behind it.
But that applies for all mechanisms.
You can always try to go one step deeper.
How do you justify that this applies to all mechanisms?

Quote
If that is your metric for what is 'rational', then 'Gut-Feel' reasoning is 'rational.'
There is no "gut feel reasoning"

There is inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
What sets apart inductive, deductive, abductive, and gut feeling reasoning? Its starting to look like you just are defining reasoning to include exactly what you want. For example, by leaving out abductive reasoning, or other forms of 'reasoning'. Tell me, how would you determine between something that is a "reasoning" and that which is not?

You seem to contend such a thing is not possible, as you are fine with no line of demarcation. Now, you seem to be claiming only these two things are reasoning, and the rest aren't without providing any justification whatsoever.


Obviously, you can be "right" if you chose your definition to say it is right. And argue circularly. Without doing so, how would you distinguish between inductive reasoning and a gut-feeling reasoning that is also a trait shared by "deductive reasoning"?

In other words, please describe to me what you consider "reasoning" to mean - not a set of examples.

Quote
I justify it as irrational because of the definition of rationalism versus the definition of empiricism.
So no justification at all then.
Again, the definition you want to look at is rational, not rationalism.

You can show deductive reasoning is 'truth preserving', which should be a suitable threshold for any reasonable use.
Again, prove it.
So far all we have are your empty words asserting that it works, but no actual proof.
Please show that it is "truth preserving" without using deductive reasoning or any form of reasoning you reject as irrational.
I don't have to prove deductive reasoning to be truth preserving. Its in the fucking definition of valid deductive reasoning. If it is not truth-preserving, its not valid deduction.

Quote
It is far better, as it does not lead to infinite regress. It is circular reasoning, but it is not regressive.
No, it is exactly the same.
You can use inductive reasoning to show inductive reasoning works, just like you can use deductive reasoning to show that deductive reasoning works.
Both are equally circular, relying upon themselves to prove that they work.
Again, one is infinitely more circular. Can you explain why there is a need to justify the principle of deduction on infinitely recursive layers or cite one source? Your claim hinges upon such a need, and no need exists. The two deductive principles validate each other. This is not true of inductive principles because they cannot be truth preserving and thus cannot validate each other assuming a set of axioms that are truthful.

I'll cite the claim for my assertion that inductive requires this. Popper: The Logic Of Scientific Discovery. Now why would it be able to justify itself in one order without being truth preserving?

Quote
If I followed what I preach
No you don't. If you did you wouldn't support being able to know anything at all.
I never did support being able to know anything at all.

Quote
Never the less, we can observe the photon.
Which isn't what I asked for at all.
Again, how are these photons generated?
This is the equivalent of mass bending space time.
If you are happy for photons to just be created without any mechanism for their formation you should be equally happy with mass just bending space time without any mechanism for doing so.
I can't validate the existence of mass bending space time, or its model without reaching a null result.

I can validate the existence of something that adheres to the model of photon.

Quote
The ones I previously linked.
So not the ones you were claiming existed at all.
Not any that disprove or contradict gravity.
Ones that are entirely consistent with gravity and our limited knowledge of the mass distribution of our planet (or any planet).
So you were lying when you said they did contradict gravity.
Like I said, I'm sure everybody would have a perfect batting average, if only his hits were counted.


Quote
I'll provide justification when you justify
i.e. you will happily just assert that deductive reasoning works with absolutely no backing to it, while dismissing other forms of reasoning unless they can be proven.

Thanks for yet again showing your double standard.
See above; any chance on justifying inductive reasoning "works", which by the way you have yet to tell me what "works" means? Am I to find you a true Scotsman while I'm at it? Or just read your mind?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 15, 2019, 03:24:07 PM
Disproof by example of inductive reasoning 'working':

Bob always leaves for work at 6:00 a.m.
Bob is always on time.
.: If Bob leaves at 6:00 a.m. for work today → Bob will be on time.


Clearly, this is not the case.

Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 15, 2019, 03:35:13 PM
In Before:
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CrazyZestyBuckeyebutterfly-max-1mb.gif)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: MouseWalker on August 15, 2019, 06:01:52 PM
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?
Quote
yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way

and I do.

Quote
How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you?
A lot.
Quote
Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth?
yes
Quote
Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion?
yes
Quote
Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
no

Quote
nothing to address, it doesn't matter.
 Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then.
 Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case,
 but that's not an argument.
You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.
this is gibberish to me.
where did you go Jane ?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 15, 2019, 06:14:12 PM
where did you go Jane ?
Make an actual point and it'll be worth posting. You got into a discussion midway through without bothering reading any of the context and got surprised you were lost. Not really worth much response.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Platonius21 on August 15, 2019, 06:53:28 PM
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: MouseWalker on August 15, 2019, 06:53:40 PM
where did you go Jane ?
Make an actual point and it'll be worth posting. You got into a discussion midway through without bothering reading any of the context and got surprised you were lost. Not really worth much response.
She ask the questions, and I responded to them, and she first dismissed it , and I rephrased, and Got silence.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 15, 2019, 07:31:00 PM
Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity,
Therefore, if you accept Einstein's Equivalence Principle, All "masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity" because:
Let's see how Albert Einstein worded his "happiest thought":
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5fj0j5j5jr8c9lr/Einstein%20%27The%20Equivalence%20of%20Gravitational%20and%20Inertial%20Mass%20of%20a%20Body%27.png?dl=1)
From: THUS SPOKE EINSTEIN on LIFE and LIVING: Wisdom of Albert Einstein in the Context (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=deFkDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=numerical+equality+between+the+inertial+and+gravitational+mass+that+the+acceleration+is+independent+of+the+nature+of+the+body+"Albert+Einstein"&source=bl&ots=bugBpM1oL_&sig=ACfU3U3_aJEy_ErHOiYs1_5uWa-dIp1jAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9nYbdpYbkAhUCXn0KHS8cCn4Q6AEwD3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Quote from: Slime
everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then. Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
All I'm arguing is that if you accept that if:
     "Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity" (You said it, not I) and
      you accept Einstein's Equivalence Principle then all "masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity".

Now, you and the FES are quite at liberty to postulate anything but that does not mean that either you or the FES can use Einstein's EEP to justify it.

You don't have to keep this charade going any longer!
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 02:18:16 AM
I contend it is and you haven't shown otherwise.
And again with the double standard.
Why should you be allowed to make whatever claims you want without backing them up, yet you object when others do the same?

How do you justify that this applies to all mechanisms?
I have already done so above.
Any time a mechanism is provided you are providing an explanation which in turn relies upon something else. That something else can then have questions asked of it.

What sets apart inductive, deductive, abductive, and gut feeling reasoning?
With reasoning, you take in data about the situation, consciously think about it, typically considering several options/possibilities and come to conclusions/inferences. Gut feeling is just following what you feel without thinking about the data.

I don't have to prove deductive reasoning to be truth preserving.
If you want to claim that deductive reasoning works, especially with all your objects to the use of objective reasoning, then you need to show it does.
Sure, technically you don't. You can just assert whatever BS you want. You can pretend that magic pixie dust reasoning is the only reasoning that works, but sane people wont take you seriously.

Its in the fucking definition of valid deductive reasoning.
So you are just trying to define it into working?
So if I define inductive reasoning to include reasoning which preserves truth, you will happy accept that inductive reasoning is fine?

Again, one is infinitely more circular.
That literally makes no sense.
They are both circular, relying upon themselves to show they work.
Once you have made the circle, you have the circle, and there is no "infinitely more."
With one you have inductive reasoning works because inductive reasoning works.
The other has deductive reasoning works because deductive reasoning works.
With both, until you prove it works, you can't prove it works.

This is not true of inductive principles because they cannot be truth preserving and thus cannot validate each other assuming a set of axioms that are truthful.
All that is claiming is that you can't use deductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning. That doesn't make it any more circular.

Now, can you actually show deductive reasoning works, without first assuming it does?

I never did support being able to know anything at all.
You sure seem to support the idea that deductive reasoning works.

I can't validate the existence of mass bending space time, or its model without reaching a null result.
I can validate the existence of something that adheres to the model of photon.
Really?
And how do you do that?
How do you know you are detecting a photon, and not something else in the same way that you don't know that you are detecting the curvature of space time rather than a something else?

Like I said
No, you said that they showed gravity to be wrong. That they were inconsistencies and falsifications of the model, making it clear that you didn't just mean cases where we could not predict the value perfectly.
But now you have shown that that was not the case, that you were not talking any falsification or inconsistency and instead just limitations of the model due to limited knowledge.

See above; any chance on justifying inductive reasoning "works"
I will let you justify that deductive reasoning works first, actually justifying it, not just asserting it.

In Before:
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CrazyZestyBuckeyebutterfly-max-1mb.gif)
Too late, you already moved them.
They were set at proving deductive reasoning works.
Instead of doing that you just attacked inductive reasoning.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 16, 2019, 03:35:35 AM
Einstein's Equivalence Principle[/i] implies that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass
At any point are you going to listen to a word I say, or just keep spamming that blatant semantic trick?
You are conflating definitions. Yes, gravitational mass means 'mass that exerts a gravitational force.' That is not relevant to the EEP. It just isn't. I've asked you to show how it is before, and every single time you've evaded the question, so you might want to think about why that is. What the principle actually cares about is 'mass subject to a gravitational force.' That is gravitational mass in this context; again, the EEP tells us that the acceleration caused by gravity is no different to any other kind of acceleration. That's it. That's what the principle actually states. That's what that snippet means, that's what actually follows from Einstein's work and explanation.
You are trying to twist it so you can claim the EEP gives a damn about where gravity actually comes from, but even you've conceded that that's rubbish, so just accept it already. Nothing in the EEP makes any kind of claim about where gravity comes from, or that mass exerts gravity. For the love of god, stop ignoring that already if you're going to refuse to address it.

Rab, if you have nothing to do except spamming the exact same out of context, uninformed line while refusing to even acknowledge anything anyone points out, that's a good indication you're not doing anything except trying to lie to people. You keep insisting you're not a liar, so stop doing it. I have asked you several times over to explain how the hell Einstein's Equivalence Principle makes any claim that mass exerts gravity. You aren't showing that implication. You are constantly pretty much copy/pasting a shorthand summary with no understanding of what it actually means, nor any explanation of why it holds in the way you are using it. I am asking you a question. Answer it, or shut up. How does the EEP make the claim that masses must exert a gravitational force? Don't just keep telling me it does because that's meaningless, tell me how it actually follows from what it really shows. I am really getting sick of your shit.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 16, 2019, 05:48:58 AM
Einstein's Equivalence Principle[/i] implies that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass
At any point are you going to listen to a word I say, or just keep spamming that blatant semantic trick?
I'm still at a total loss as to what this " spamming that blatant semantic trick"! I have never intended any "semantic trick"!

Quote from: Slime
You are conflating definitions. Yes, gravitational mass means 'mass that exerts a gravitational force.' That is not relevant to the EEP. It just isn't.
I beg to differ! It is very relevant to the EEP.
How can we possibly have 'mass subject to a gravitational force' that is not also 'mass exerting a gravitational force'?

Quote from: Slime
I've asked you to show how it is before, and every single time you've evaded the question, so you might want to think about why that is. What the principle actually cares about is 'mass subject to a gravitational force.' That is gravitational mass in this context; again, the EEP tells us that the acceleration caused by gravity is no different to any other kind of acceleration. That's it. That's what the principle actually states. That's what that snippet means, that's what actually follows from Einstein's work and explanation.
You might say, "That's what that snippet means, that's what actually follows from Einstein's work and explanation" but is that what Einstein said? See below!

In Newtonian Gravitation there is no distinction between a 'mass subject to a gravitational force' and 'mass exerting a gravitational force'.
And it was Newtonian Gravitation that Einstein was referring to in:
Quote
Einstein's statement of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass:
"A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:
          (Inertial mass) x (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) x (Gravitational mass).
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body."
And from
Quote from: Hyperphysics
Astronomy, Relativity: Principle of Equivalence (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/grel.html)
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field.
One way of stating this fundamental principle of general relativity is to say that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.
And please remember that, by definition, all mass is 'inertial mass',

And in General Relativity, all mass-energy contributes to the stress–energy tensor. There is no 'exerts'/'subject to' distinction.

To me, "identical" is a reciprocal operation meaning that a 'mass subject to a gravitational force' is also a 'mass exerting a gravitational force' and vice versa.

How can it be any other way? There cannot be two kinds of mass under either Newton's Laws or Einstein's Theory.

That is the import of all mass is inertial mass but gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass then all mass is gravitational mass

Quote from: Slime
You are trying to twist it so you can claim the EEP gives a damn about where gravity actually comes from.
I honestly cannot see any interpretation other than that which I have explained above.

Quote from: Slime
Nothing in the EEP makes any kind of claim about where gravity comes from, or that mass exerts gravity. For the love of god, stop ignoring that already if you're going to refuse to address it.
How is the following "saying nothing"?
Quote
Einstein's statement of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass
A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:
               (Inertial mass) x (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) x (Gravitational mass).
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body

As I've said. I disagree and you seem to be disputing what Einstein himself wrote of Einstein's Equivalence Principle?
<< Repeated quote removed for brevity >>

Now if you can be rational for one minute and desist from making your totally unwarranted accusations: How can you interpret those words any other way?

I am not saying that UA is inconsistent with Einstein's Equivalence Prenciple. UA is quite consistent with EEP.

But what I am saying is that claiming that there can be Celestial Gravitation without Terrestrial Gravitation is inconsistent with EEP.

So the FES can hypothesise what it likes - but they are not justified in using the EEP to support more than just UA,

Why do you go into your rant and refuse to explain where I am wrong?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 16, 2019, 06:42:01 AM
How can we possibly have 'mass subject to a gravitational force' that is not also 'mass exerting a gravitational force'?
Well that was a pathetic rant. You could've just said this, but oh, I know why you didn't. Posturing, trying to look clever, and trying to hide the fact that you are yet again being one of the most outright disgusting users on this site. We've been here before. You said it, got an answer, stopped responding, and here we are again with you pretending like that's unquestionable fact that if false all reality would fall apart, rather than just modern understanding and an alternate model would still easily allow for it without having the slightest impact on the EEP.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2192644#msg2192644
So how can we? Pretty easily. Fields caused by matter that only really exert a force one way, outside of specific circumstances, exist. Why not a model where gravity's one of them?

Also, reminder:
Quote
And in General Relativity, all mass-energy contributes to the stress–energy tensor. There is no 'exerts'/'subject to' distinction.
No one cares. Your claim was that Einstein's Equivalence Principle somehow makes that claim, and that's the nonsense I'm calling you out on. When you need to change the topic, that's a good indication you should stop defending this rubbish.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: John Davis on August 16, 2019, 10:18:15 AM
I'm done talking with you Jack. You are clearly just trolling.

I don't have to show deductive reasoning is truth preserving because it is the definition of it. It's not me "defining it to be what I want", but the accepted definition. You are the one making wild claims, having doubel standards, presenting straw man, and trying to define yourself into the right with your little game around defining 'reasonable' to suit yourself.

I see no point in being a party to your nonsense.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: markjo on August 16, 2019, 11:19:11 AM
I don't have to show deductive reasoning is truth preserving because it is the definition of it. It's not me "defining it to be what I want", but the accepted definition.
Definition generally accepted by whom?  There are a number of definitions that RE'ers generally accept but FE'ers generally don't, so who's truth is being preserved?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: rabinoz on August 16, 2019, 01:30:43 PM
How can we possibly have 'mass subject to a gravitational force' that is not also 'mass exerting a gravitational force'?
<< So you are incapable of giving a reasoned reply, got that! >>
Why is it that when I do my best to explain things to the best of my ability it's a "rant" but when you go into a real rant it's not a rant? just curious ::).

But remember that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass and all mass is Inertial Mass therefore all mass is Gravitational Mass.

UA might cherry-pick a small part of EEP but that does not limit EEP to that little bit.

And remember that others are entitled to differ from you without being called liars and being accused of engaging in "semantic tricks".
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 16, 2019, 01:49:52 PM
Why is it that when I do my best to explain things to the best of my ability it's a "rant" but when you go into a real rant it's not a rant? just curious ::).
Because one of us is actually answering questions posed, while one of us is taking every possible opportunity to avoid doing so. Don't pretend you're explaining anything when you're just repeating yourself and refusing to acknowledge a single word.

Jesus christ this is pathetic, you're not even trying any more.

But remember that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass and all mass is Inertial Mass therefore all mass is Gravitational Mass.
How about taking the radical approach of saying how that actually follows from 'acceleration caused by gravity is the same as any other acceleration' rather than repeating ad nauseaum? You've already had it pointed out to you how you're conflating definitions. So, please, actually answer the question already. If all you're doing is repeating a quote over and over, that's a pretty good indication you have nothing but semantics. People with actual scientific backing can manage *gasp* explanations.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 03:17:41 PM
I don't have to show deductive reasoning is truth preserving because it is the definition of it. It's not me "defining it to be what I want", but the accepted definition.
Do you mean like how inductive reasoning is accepted under the definition of rational?
And that inductive reasoning is accepted as working, with limitations?
It sure seems like it is still you that is trolling with double standards.

Those who truly follow a position with a complete rejection of inductive reasoning know that we cannot know anything, including the ability to know that we cannot know anything. This would also include not knowing that deductive reasoning works.
You can pretend that inductive reasoning must work by defining it as such, but then we don't know if what we think of as deductive reasoning is actually deductive reasoning, or just something else which falsely attribute as such.
Even deductive reasoning is only substantiated by inductive reasoning, by observing the universe and making conclusions from what is observed, or by itself.

For example, a key part is the law of non-contradiction. But that is based upon our observations of the universe.
Why can't something be true and false at the same time?
What actual justification for this is there?
You have the inductive argument appealing to observations of the universe where nothing is true and false at the same time, and you have deductive arguments which rely upon this principle, such as by showing it leads to a contradiction.

So no, I am not following a double standard, I am merely exposing yours.
I would be quite happy to accept that for everyday purposes, rather than this philosophical level, reasoning works including both inductive and deductive reasoning, which most people would accept.
But you reject this.

Because one of us is actually answering questions posed, while one of us is taking every possible opportunity to avoid doing so.
Yes, you do seem to take every possible opportunity to avoid answering questions.

As pointed out before, the equivalence principle states that objects in a uniform gravitational field is the same as an object in a uniformly accelerating reference frame.
It isn't just a magic force appearing.
The question is who force should an object have?
The force, is determined by the strength of the field and the gravitational mass.
While this does not require gravitational and inertial mass to be equal, it does require them to be proportional, so an object with 10 times the inertial mass of a reference object has 10 times the gravitational mass of that object.


Now can you provide an example where an object with a particular property can be subject to a field, with an interaction with this field resulting in a force, while this property doesn't also mean it creates such a field?

Also note, that Newton's third law seems to require it. Consider what would happen if it isn't the case:
You have an object which is generating a field (the generator).
Another object in this field is then acted upon by the field, but without generating a field of its own (the subject).
This results in a force being applied to the subject and accelerating it.
And that's all.
This means we have generated a force without the corresponding reactionary force.
A direct contradiction of Newton's third law of motion.

In order to conserve Newton's third law of motion, you need to have the subject also create a field which the generator then interacts with and is accelerated by.
This means there is no real distinction between the objects. Both objects generate the field based upon the property, and both objects are affected by the field based upon that property.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 17, 2019, 03:26:23 AM
Now can you provide an example where an object with a particular property can be subject to a field, with an interaction with this field resulting in a force, while this property doesn't also mean it creates such a field?
Idly glanced at your post. Reminded me of why I don't read them. Thanks for that, I get morbidly curious sometimes.
Yes, easily. You know I can, you were involved in the discussion previously when one was pointed out, it got linked just a few posts ago.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2192644#msg2192644

And pre-empting your obvious irrelevant response:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2192728#msg2192728
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2019, 04:50:34 AM
Idly glanced at your post. Reminded me of why I don't read them.
You know you don't have to read anyone's posts?  You just seem to like moaning about Rab and Jack - just ignore if you want to.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 17, 2019, 05:02:04 AM
Idly glanced at your post. Reminded me of why I don't read them.
You know you don't have to read anyone's posts?  You just seem to like moaning about Rab and Jack - just ignore if you want to.
If I was the only one that had to deal with them, I would.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Platonius21 on August 17, 2019, 06:52:41 AM
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 17, 2019, 07:26:03 AM
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on August 17, 2019, 07:57:38 AM
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Regarding maps, there has never been, as far as I know, any flat earth derived maps that have ever been used for commercial navigation. Can you explain why every commercial map currently sold for navigation has been derived from data that is based on the earth being a 'spherical object' and not a flat disc infinite or otherwise?

It's all very well having alternate views, in some cases it can be quite a good thing, but in the case of maps and navigation, there is only room for one system. If you were to navigate your way from Alaska to Chile, what map(s) would you use for such a journey? If you used regular commercial maps or even sat-nav, do you think you would reach your destination successfully?

If you took a photo of the full moon while in Alaska, then travelled to Chile, assuming the journey took you a full month, can you explain why the moon, when viewed from Chile, would appear upside down with respect to the moon in the picture you took while in Alaska the month previous?

Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 17, 2019, 08:07:21 AM
Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Plugging your ears, I see. None of those sources come from FES. What makes you think that we wrote those sources provided in the link? Nearly the entire Wiki are references to mainstream sources with minimal commentary.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Lonegranger on August 17, 2019, 12:17:43 PM
Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Plugging your ears, I see. None of those sources come from FES. What makes you think that we wrote those sources provided in the link? Nearly the entire Wiki are references to mainstream sources with minimal commentary.

Well, why not link to the original sources?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Macarios on August 17, 2019, 02:13:49 PM
Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Plugging your ears, I see. None of those sources come from FES. What makes you think that we wrote those sources provided in the link? Nearly the entire Wiki are references to mainstream sources with minimal commentary.

Well, why not link to the original sources?

"Because the original sources contain other, undesired data and aren't arranged in the desired way." :)

Ofcourse, this was a joke, please don't take it seriously.
You have some links to the original sources in the article itself.

I just wonder why is this in the acceleration topic?
But since it is already here...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is represented by those little flat maps?
How big (small) portion of the planet's surface is on each flat map?

Quote
Could those who believe that the Earth is Not Round! article is describing a system which
distributes round earth measurements kindly explain to us how it works without using the
spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude? We would really like to know.

Well, you already answered that in the same wiki:

Quote
The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems
designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones,
the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US,
with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.
The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments.
Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system
to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic
coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple
XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

If the Earth was flat, would it have to be divided into small portions for this approximation?
It would be easy to make single flat map and just crop required parts for specific areas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, the difference between polar and equatorial radius is some 21 km,
which, if you scale Earth to 200 millimeters, gets scaled to 0.33 millimeters.

The line you use to draw it on paper is 0.7 millimeters thick.

On screen to have the difference represented as 1 pixel you need the circle of 600 pixels.
In the image below is some circle 600 pixels high.
Can you see if it is 600 or 601 pixels wide?

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/GKVAB0.png)
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 17, 2019, 02:25:12 PM
Yes, easily. You know I can, you were involved in the discussion previously when one was pointed out, it got linked just a few posts ago.
So that's a no then.

Even with magnetism the components subject to it still create a field. There is no one way interaction like you need which defies physics.
Like I said before, the key distinction between magnetism and gravity is that with magnetism you have dipoles, the other key part is that with magnetism opposites attract. The latter allows 2 opposite components to be quite close and effectively cancel each other's field.

So do you have an example of something being able to interact with a field without being able to create a field of its own, in direct violation of Newton's third law?
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: JackBlack on August 17, 2019, 02:30:53 PM
Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
You really need to stop using your wiki of falsehoods as a reference.

Do you have a valid reference for the allegedly accurate flat maps of WGS84?

I thought WGS 84 was just a system to be used for referencing, not a collection of maps.
But feel free to present this accurate global flat map using WGS84.
Title: Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
Post by: Slemon on August 17, 2019, 02:53:15 PM
So do you have an example of something being able to interact with a field without being able to create a field of its own, in direct violation of Newton's third law?
Let's break this down. And for the love of god, don't do one of your unreadable, pretentious line-by-line dissections, there are about two key points in here and everyone's bored of your pettiness. The rest is just background and context.

We're only discussing this because Rab claimed Einstein's Equivalence Principle contradicts the idea of gravity being a property of only some masses rather than all masses. That's been discarded now, to talk purely about whether a gravitational field can affect something that does not exert it, else Rab's supposed argument fails. Further, the only necessary reason for FEers to reject conventional gravity is that the Earth would be drawn into a ball if so. (It is not the only reason FEers might choose to reject it, but it's the only one that's mandatory in this case).
So your objection about components subject to magnetism still creating a field is irrelevant. If you have a paperclip on the outer range of a magnet's force, it does not exert a magnetic field with all the strength of the central magnet. There's that classic experiment most people have done of chaining paperclips from a magnet; the force doesn't go on endlessly, even with direct physical contact. So either way, if gravity behaves the same way you wouldn't get the central point needed to make the Earth form a ball, nor would you get anything that would make it stop being a sphere. You'd have select, specific points of local pull, caused by a small enough source that it would be outweighed by the bonds holding the Earth together. So, irrelevant.
And dipoles, well most matter in this analogy would be the equivalent of metal. The mass that does exert gravity, all you're doing is positing a kind of repulsive gravity that acts solely on other sources of gravity which, well, why not? Going to be tricky to test, but could use that to justify the source of UA for one. Something similar's part of Sandokhan's AFET with respect to the rotation of subquark strings; some attract, some repel.

But all of that is conceding the premise that 'any field like this must behave exactly like magnetism!' which is just silly. I don't need to concede that, but even if I do, there still isn't a problem. One could simply suppose a force that, y'know, isn't identical to magnetism and ta-da. No problem.
And even then, that's conceding 'you must provide an example of something like it for it to be possible!' which is just as silly. There's hardly much like gravity as understood by RET, that's not a reason to reject it. All that matters is the basic description.
There are just... no grounds on which your line of argumentation works. I'm hoping a breakdown actually shows that, but