The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Timeisup on January 03, 2021, 01:55:40 AM

Title: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 03, 2021, 01:55:40 AM
The fundamental difference between conventional science and FE belief is the existence of Gravity. For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood.
While I can pick from many sources that will trace the beginnings of its discovery and explain how an understanding of how it operates has grown from falling apples to the discovery of gravitational waves there are no sources, that Iím aware of, that will do the same for UA.
While a simple search on current gravitational research will yield many hits
https://www.nature.com/subjects/general-relativity-and-gravity
A similar search on UA as proposed by FE belief will yield none!
The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?
What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 03, 2021, 03:53:03 AM
Fairy stories and imaginings.

Im afraid that's not really an answer. The idea of UA must have come about from somewhere and what many people would like to know is what body of research is it based on? Its very easy to read about the whole story of gravity and all the experiments and research that has been conducted to support its validity.  When it comes to UA its very different I can find no books, papers or references on the subject or links to any physicists who may have come up with the idea. it's as if the whole concept of UA appeared out of thin air. It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on? Where is the evidence for their case? Where is the evidence for UA?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: boydster on January 03, 2021, 06:44:55 AM
If you'd like to discuss UA, while you are welcome to ask questions here you will almost certainly get more feedback at the other site as they have several more active posters that subscribe to the UA model.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Mattathome on January 04, 2021, 07:29:03 AM
The fundamental difference between conventional science and FE belief is the existence of Gravity.

Just like to make a point here that not all FE believers follow the UA model.  Some FE models represent Earth as an infinite plain, where gravity works. 

If you'd like to discuss UA, while you are welcome to ask questions here you will almost certainly get more feedback at the other site as they have several more active posters that subscribe to the UA model.

The best open ended answer you're ever likely to get
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 04, 2021, 08:04:20 AM
@timeisup

"For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood."

Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.

"The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?"

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.  The people who study flat earth research are working on other problems - frequently the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence/data/science to the presumptive model.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

"What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?"

Could you turn this into a multiple choice question? What do you imagine options for "knowledge base"'s might be?

In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

"The idea of UA must have come about from somewhere and what many people would like to know is what body of research is it based on?"

As far as I know, UA originated from the tfes forums - but I don't know which one or which user :(. I am not a proponent.

"it's as if the whole concept of UA appeared out of thin air."

Yes, this is how ideas - especially radical scientific ones - often come into being.  The world was blindsided and transformed by some of them.  Though no man is an island, and nothing exists in a vacuum.

"It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on?"

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

"Where is the evidence for their case? Where is the evidence for UA?"

You misunderstand.  The posit for UA is a simple reference frame/convention reversal.  The evidence for "gravitation" IS the evidence for UA.  All that appears as a force pulling down, is actually a large force pushing everything up.  It is a fundamentally consistent and scientifically sound perspective / model.  You may do the same for the sky in astronomy.  There is no problem for the science/mathematics to define the sky/universe as moving and the earth as stationary.  It's just by arbitrated convention that we agree on such things.

It is funny and telling/meaningful that you (and most everyone else) mention myth (apples falling) when discussing the origins of the "science" of gravitation.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Stash on January 04, 2021, 08:54:24 AM
@timeisup

"For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood."

Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.

How so?

"The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?"

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.  The people who study flat earth research are working on other problems - frequently the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence/data/science to the presumptive model.

Instead of working on the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence, focus on a functional map. That is the Holy Grail for FET.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

As far as disposal is concerned, are you suggesting that engineers remove all gravity equations from their calculations when designing an airplane or a roller coaster and rely solely on the Archimedes Principle?

"What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?"

Could you turn this into a multiple choice question? What do you imagine options for "knowledge base"'s might be?

In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

Nothing like overstating the obvious in too many words. Science should focus on facts. Got it.

"It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on?"

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

How is it stupid and unscientific when we apply his principles to almost everything that is engineered today? Yes, I understand this is an appeal to authority, but what isn't really? It's also an appeal to reality.

Is there some hurdle that is preventing you from using the quote feature? When one does use it, it preserves some semblance of context and allows later readers to quickly click back to the original post to gather perhaps even more context.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Groit on January 04, 2021, 11:24:55 AM
Anyone who rejects gravity and uses a smartphone is a hypocrite.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 04, 2021, 01:15:07 PM
@groit

Translation: Anyone who doesn't believe in/accept my particular dogmas about science doesn't deserve science or technology.  aka "Burn the heretic" a few centuries ago.

It's not a very enlightened, objective, curious, or scientific perspective... it does have a lamentably long history though.

No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) on gravitation.  Also, this is a slightly tricky discussion regarding the equivocation fallacy.  I am speaking of gravitation, not gravity, and most people don't recognize the difference.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 04, 2021, 01:23:16 PM
Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.
Do you mean a finite disc?
If so, what would stop gravity causing that disc to collapse into a sphere, given that it much too large to be held together by its material properties?

And just what distribution of matter allows a flat disc to have a downwards field of relatively similar strength (only a small ~1% variation), where if you are including variations, they match what is observed, with gravity strongest at the centre of your FE disc and at the outer ring?

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.
If you want to have a model which can compete with the RE model, you do need a replacement, as you need to explain why things fall.
Even just appealing to weight like you have done is an attempt at a replacement.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever.
You mean falsely concluded, as there is plenty of evidence backing it up. Things includes the simple evidence of objects falling, to the more advanced experiments like those of Cavendish, which you can even do yourself, and plenty of people have done. It also includes the celestial objects following their predictable orbits due to gravity and all the satellites in orbit around Earth.

Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.
Which in no way explains why things fall.


In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.
Knowledge is a subset of belief. In order to know something you must believe it.
One of the simple definitions of knowledge is "Justified, true belief".

So what matters is why you believe.
If you just believe because you have been told, or because you want to reject something or you just want it to be true, you have faith.
But if you believe based upon evidence and logical arguments, then (assuming that is sufficient and can withstand scrutiny and it actually shows what you believe is true rather than just thinking it does) it becomes knowledge and fact, at least for practical purposes.


  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity.
So because he came up with an idea you don't like, you dismiss him as not being a scientist?
What he did was entirely scientific.
He had experimental observations which didn't have a very good explanation at all, and realised that they could be connected with a simple force and hypothesised that gravity exists and follows a simple inverse square law.
As a low energy approximation, that turned out to be quite accurate, with later experiments confirming it and a later model capable of being approximated to that.

The evidence for "gravitation" IS the evidence for UA.
No, it isn't.
Only the simplest of evidence of things falling is evidence for UA (and that is not UA in preference to gravity)
The more advanced evidence including how the rate of acceleration varies around Earth, especially the variation based upon latitude, and how satellites orbit Earth, and other planets orbit the sun and so on, and how objects on Earth are attracted to one another based upon mass, in no way supports UA.

It is a fundamentally consistent and scientifically sound perspective / model.
Only when looked at in the most superficial way.
As soon as you delve deeper, it falls apart.
For example, simply asking why it seems that everything in the universe accelerates together, including all the objects at some height above Earth with all their different sizes, but not us just above Earth?
Or asking why the apparent rate of acceleration towards Earth varies around Earth, rather than being constant as you would expect if it was simply Earth accelerating upwards?

No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) gravitation.
That depends on how much you actually analyse the connections between them.
For example, do you use GPS on you phone? If so, that uses gravity as that uses satellites.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 04, 2021, 04:55:43 PM
No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) gravitation.  Also, this is a slightly tricky discussion regarding the equivocation fallacy.  I am speaking of gravitation, not gravity, and most people don't recognize the difference.

What exactly is your definition of "gravitation" and how does it differ from theories of gravity used in either Einstein's or Newton's works?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Unconvinced on January 05, 2021, 04:55:08 AM

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

Mass is the intrinsic property, itís a scalar quantity (ie has no direction).  Weight is the force on a mass due to gravity (the Newtonian version).  Forces are vector quantities and consist of both magnitude and direction.  Thatís whatís missing from Flat Earther attempts to somehow just ignore gravity.  Youíre missing a reason for down to be down.  At least the UA proponents understand that much.


Quote
In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

Scientism is just a silly word used by people who want to arbitrarily dismiss any scientific findings they donít like or donít understand.

And Newton proposed a few simple equations that near perfectly describe and explain the motions of all objects observed in the solar system, at the same time as explaining why things fall down in earth.  Two things Flat Earthers are unable to explain hundreds of years later. 

@groit

Translation: Anyone who doesn't believe in/accept my particular dogmas about science doesn't deserve science or technology.  aka "Burn the heretic" a few centuries ago.

It's not a very enlightened, objective, curious, or scientific perspective... it does have a lamentably long history though.

No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) on gravitation.  Also, this is a slightly tricky discussion regarding the equivocation fallacy.  I am speaking of gravitation, not gravity, and most people don't recognize the difference.

Newtonís Law of Universal Gravitation is in the first few pages of several of my engineering text books, right after his laws of motion.  That on Earth, there is a downward force acting on all mass is absolutely fundamental to mechanical and structural engineering. 

So our technology is designed and built accounting for gravity.  You might want to try to find an equivalent to do the same thing, but saying we can just do without it is total nonsense.

If you want to be objective and scientific, maybe you should learn about the concepts you claim can be disposed of?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 07, 2021, 11:58:52 PM
@jackblack

Quote
Do you mean a finite disc?

Possibly. Regardless of shape, the idea that the only shape it could be is a sphere merely because gravity exists is dumb.

Quote
If so, what would stop gravity causing that disc to collapse into a sphere

The same things that currently do (structure, tensile strength etc.).  Most everything in nature is not a sphere - nor are they collapsing into one.

Quote
given that it much too large to be held together by its material properties?

Lol.  Why on earth do you think we know the material properties of the entire world? We have no idea what it is made of except for the smallest most insignificant fraction of the "crust".

Quote
And just what distribution of matter allows a flat disc to have a downwards field of relatively similar strength (only a small ~1% variation), where if you are including variations, they match what is observed, with gravity strongest at the centre of your FE disc and at the outer ring?

There isn't only one - use your imagination! (or don't, completely up to you). You may also wish to consider that the known world we have "gravity" measurements of may not be the entirety of it - which allows still more possibilities for shape/distribution.

Quote
If you want to have a model which can compete with the RE model

As I explained to timeisup, "we" - myself and the majority of flat earth researchers I have encountered are not interested in models - competitive or otherwise.  This is something YOU want, not most of the people involved in flat earth research (there are some working towards this end - but it takes a tremendous amount of data collection and effort to create an accurate model of a world and it can be expected to take millennia as the existing presumptive one did - especially when only engaged with by small numbers of unfunded/unsupported individuals)

Models are not a part of science proper.  They are meta scientific tools for specific purposes.  All models are wrong, but some are limitedly useful for a finite time.  There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth), and models have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote
Even just appealing to weight like you have done is an attempt at a replacement.

Actually, it's just reversion.  When we discover that our latest scientific theory is garbage (which happens quite frequently historically), we revert to the previous one.  It's pretty simple - as I said, archimedes had all this worked out millennia ago.

Quote
You mean falsely concluded, as there is plenty of evidence backing it up.

Ah, with the typical certainty of the common religious zealot.  You haven't seen the evidence or research I have, but my conclusion is obviously wrong BECAUSE your's MUST be right...

Quote
Which in no way explains why things fall.

They fall because there is nothing to hold them up, and more specifically/explicitly BECAUSE they were lifted.  Things fall with the energy that was used to lift them - nothing more; in accordance with the law of conservation.

Quote
Knowledge is a subset of belief.

I like it, it is poetic - it's just wrong.  Knowledge and belief are separate and distinct, and they are best kept that way.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  In science, we eschew belief and we demand proof by experiment instead!

Quote
So because he came up with an idea you don't like, you dismiss him as not being a scientist?

It is in no way that simple or cut and dry.  I know so much about newton BECAUSE I like him so much.  I say he wasn't a scientist because he wasn't - not in the modern sense of the word we use today.  It isn't iconoclasty for its own sake - though I am not above that as I loathe idolatry.

Also, you seemed to have missed one of the most important points... Gravity was NOT his idea!!! He even asked that his name not be associated with it!  We have been largely mistaught about newton.

Quote
What he did was entirely scientific.

Arguably, but only by caveat.  Science is only that which rigorously adheres to the scientific method, and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces.  The caveat is called natural law, and it is established solely through observation alone.

He speculated a cause, called gravity.  He did not even bother, famously, to even feign a hypothesis regarding it - as he knew full well it was outside the realm of science.  He literally attributed the force, its mechanism, and apportioning/application to god almighty.

It is fine to hypothesize any cause you wish, but it isn't science until it is experimentally validated.  That is the only purpose of hypothesis.  Newton knew there was no experimental validation possible, which is why he didn't even bother to try.

Quote
No, it isn't.

It is much analogous to the centrifugal/centripetal distinction in physics which I assume you are familiar with.  The evidence for gravity is used as the evidence for UA.  It is a straight convention flip - and it causes no issues for calculation/model/science.

Quote
The more advanced evidence ... in no way supports UA.

I personally think UA is junk because it trades one problem for another, and just inverts gravity.  I don't think its proponents would have any difficulty reconciling/explaining your examples in the flipped framework - after all, it's only flipped!

Quote
For example, simply asking why it seems that everything in the universe accelerates together, including all the objects at some height above Earth with all their different sizes, but not us just above Earth?

I am confused by the phrasing, could you restate?  Wether the ground is, in fact, rising to meet the falling object - or the object is falling to meet the stationary ground - the result is the same.  Wether the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone - it's going to be very bad for the pitcher.

Quote
Or asking why the apparent rate of acceleration towards Earth varies around Earth, rather than being constant as you would expect if it was simply Earth accelerating upwards?

I think that is a valid criticism/question, however it is easily reconciled if one is so inclined.  For instance, there are those that conclude that the apparent acceleration variance is caused by other factors (like varying buoyant force, seismic activity, etc.) and so on.

Quote
For example, do you use GPS on you phone? If so, that uses gravity as that uses satellites.

So we are told, yes!  In any case, the point was that no technology or science requires the shape of the earth to be anything particular.  Orbit perhaps does - but that is another can of worms, which is why I asked that satellites be left out for the time being (unless insisted).
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 08, 2021, 12:22:58 AM
@jja

Quote
What exactly is your definition of "gravitation" and how does it differ from theories of gravity used in either Einstein's or Newton's works?

Specific definition (einsteinian, cavendishian, newtonian, epicurian) is irrelevant, it is the difference between gravity and gravitation, between scientific law and theory that is so commonly misunderstood.

Gravity is a natural law.  Natural law is a behavior of nature that is consistently and rigorously measured. It is bore through rigorous and repeated measurement alone.  The law of gravity is, in its roughest and most imprecise terms - what goes up, must come down.

Gravitation is a theory.  Theory is bore and refined through experiment.

The mathematical formulations further confuse/conflate things, as they introduce non-real (purely mathematical) entities borrowed from gravitation (theory) in their description of the real gravity (law).
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 01:27:38 AM
Quote
Do you mean a finite disc?
Possibly. Regardless of shape, the idea that the only shape it could be is a sphere merely because gravity exists is dumb.
And just why do you think it is dumb?
It is quite sound.
The are only a few main forces holding objects together:
The strong and weak nuclear forces, which hold together individual atomic nuclei; which is only significant over that tiny range.
Electromagnetic interactions, which which hold electrons to nuclei, and which form molecules and solid structures. This again has a fairly small effective range due to things pairing up (e.g. the positive nucleus with the negative electrons), but with how it can strongly join things together, it will work over much greater distances. But it still has a limit. There is a maximum force any object held together via electromagnetic interactions can take before it breaks.
Then there is gravity. With at least this part of the universe made of things with positive mass, it will hold together and not pair up. This means an object on the other side of Earth will still attract you.

So when you consider a large solid object, the nuclear forces are only holding together the smallest parts and play no role in keeping the overall object together; electromagnetism plays a more significant role, but (for simplicity assuming a homogenous substance) the force it provides is the same throughout and doesn't scale with the size of the object, e.g. it is the same if the object was 1 mm or 1 Mm.
And then there is gravity; unlike the others this does scale with the size of the object. Again simplifying with a homogenous substance, which I will have as a sphere for simplicity of calculation, the mass is proportional to r^3, while the strength of gravity at the surface pulling towards the centre scales with mass/r^2, so overall it scales with r.
i.e. double the radius, double the surface gravity.

But it isn't that simple, that puts the entire system under pressure and typically results in the object being more dense that it would be without gravity, increasing it even more. Eventually you have enough gravity to overcome the electromagnetic force and have the object collapse.

And this applies regardless of the shape.
Consider any object of any shape. It would be under some pressure due to gravity.
But now sit it on another object. The gravitational attraction to the other object will increase the pressure.
If you keep doing this, you will eventually reach a large enough pressure to cause the object to fail.

This means that gravity will create a maximum size to any object, and it is only a question of what that size is.

Quote
If so, what would stop gravity causing that disc to collapse into a sphere
The same things that currently do
You mean the pressure of the ground pushing outwards preventing further collapse into a point?

Most everything in nature is not a sphere
You mean most small things.
Find me an object in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which is not roughly spherical.
You know, at the size range that gravity would crush it into a sphere. (which for rocky material is roughly 600 km.)

The things comparable to Earth would be the celestial objects, which are round, except for the much smaller asteroids.

Lol.  Why on earth do you think we know the material properties of the entire world? We have no idea what it is made of except for the smallest most insignificant fraction of the "crust".
And also the flowing magma below the crust.
We also know things like what pressure is required for nuclear fusion, which would turn Earth into a star.

Quote
And just what distribution of matter allows a flat disc to have a downwards field of relatively similar strength (only a small ~1% variation), where if you are including variations, they match what is observed, with gravity strongest at the centre of your FE disc and at the outer ring?
There isn't only one
So you should easily be able to provide one, rather than just telling me to use my imagination.


As I explained to timeisup, "we" - myself and the majority of flat earth researchers I have encountered are not interested in models
Yes, you seem to just be interested in discarding reality with no just cause and coming up with whatever excuses you can to pretend it all works fine.
See if you actually cared about the truth you would be interested in developing a model which explains all that the mainstream model already explains.


it can be expected to take millennia
You have had that time. People thought Earth was flat before they realised it was round.
But a big issue with developing the model and it taking so long was new phenomenon being discovered and better measurements being able to more accurately determine things and being able to travel all over the world.
You have all that now, and thus it shouldn't take you anywhere near as long. If you wiped out our model of Earth, but we kept all our measuring tools and records of observations, we would develop the same RE model quite quickly.

Models are not a part of science proper.
Yes they are. They are the hypothesis which is tested to check if it matches reality.
Unless you are making models and testing them, you aren't doing science.

There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth), and models have absolutely nothing to do with it.
That is a very limited view. There is no tool in existence like a tape measure which can simply measure Earth.
The best you can do is a tool which measures small portions of Earth, which then has errors with combining it into a much larger MODEL
The closest you could get to direct measurements are satellites taking pictures of Earth from many angles (which show it is round). Even then it is still a model.

The more sane and scientific approach is to have a model, make predictions from that model, and see if they match. To use observations (including measurements) from reality to determine which models match the measurement and which don't, or to refine the model, such as filling in unconstrained variables.

Quote
Even just appealing to weight like you have done is an attempt at a replacement.
Actually, it's just reversion.
It doesn't matter what you want to call it, it is a replacement.

It's pretty simple - as I said, archimedes had all this worked out millennia ago.
If it is pretty simple, why can't you explain it?
Why should mass make anything fall?

Ah, with the typical certainty of the common religious zealot.
No, with the conviction of someone with understanding, dismissing wild claims.

You haven't seen the evidence or research I have, but my conclusion is obviously wrong BECAUSE your's MUST be right...
No, because I have seen and obtained evidence clearly showing gravity, and know that your attempt to replace it doesn't work as it fails to address so much. And because like so many, rather than attempting to show anything wrong with it, or provide a viable alternative, you just dismiss it as fake, with the typical certainty of the common religious zealot.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 01:28:25 AM
They fall because there is nothing to hold them up
Nothing holding them up does not provide a reason for them to fall.
You would still need an actual reason.
Is there anything holding them down? If not, why don't they fly up?
You need an explanation for the directionality.

BECAUSE they were lifted.  Things fall with the energy that was used to lift them - nothing more; in accordance with the law of conservation.
Yes, just like if I push this glass sitting on my desk to the right, expending energy to do so, it falls back to the left. Oh wait, it didn't.
Maybe the friction of the table got in the way. I'll try with throwing a ball to the right. Surely that should then force it back to the left.
Strange, still no. It is as if that explanation is pure nonsense which doesn't explain it at all.

We clearly have examples of expending energy to move an object, yet it doesn't cause it to go back the other way.
So that clearly doesn't explain it.
You need an explanation for the direction.

Why does lifting an object take energy, where you supply the object with gravitational potential energy (I suppose you would call it weight potential energy?) But only lifting it, with moving it to the side not taking that energy?
Why does it then release this energy when it comes back down. Just what is this energy in your "weight makes things go down"?

In fact, without something like gravity, the simple act of throwing a ball up into the air and having it fall is a direct violation of the law of conversation of energy.
If it conserved energy it would continue moving upwards, rather than losing energy for no reason at all. And when stopped it would not accelerate downwards as that would give it energy from nothing.

Quote
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
I like it, it is poetic - it's just wrong.
I don't care if you want to reject it, it is still true.
A belief is something you think is true.
Belief are the things you think are true.
Knowledge are those things you think are true, that actually are true, and that you have a justification for thinking are true.

What you are thinking of is faith.

I say he wasn't a scientist because he wasn't - not in the modern sense of the word we use today.
How wasn't he?

Gravity was NOT his idea
So whose was it?
Especially with it being a universal law of gravitation, with F=GMm/r^2

He speculated a cause, called gravity.  He did not even bother, famously, to even feign a hypothesis regarding it
So what was the whole F=GMm/r^2 thing?
That sure seems to be a hypothesis.

The only question is how to test it.
We already knew Earth was massive, and thus the force acting on an object on Earth would be quite small, and thus hard to actually test the law.
But we have gotten a lot better since then, and have validated it in the low energy limit.

Quote
No, it isn't.
The evidence for gravity is used as the evidence for UA.
Again, A TINY PORTION of the evidence for gravity is used for UA. (that things fall)
They 2 are not simply equivalent in the sense of you can just reject gravity and replace it entirely with UA.
They are equivalent in a local environment, where for a given local environment, where the gravitational acceleration is constant, that can be equally explained with gravity or acceleration.

But in a much broader sense, it can't. That is because the gravitational acceleration changes.

Again, for a simple example, with accepting the fact that Earth is round (which you can do for the sake of argument even if you don't accept it):
UA postulates that Earth accelerates upwards instead of gravity pulling us down. But with a round Earth this would be Earth accelerates outwards. This would mean that it would grow over time, drastically increasing its size and isolating parts of Earth from other parts in short order.
It would also mean that a satellite wouldn't maintain an orbit. Again, the simple way is that Earth would expand outwards and it would crash into it (as it follows a straight line). The more complex way is to note that to maintain the orbit the average of gravity needs to be 0, that is the direction changes such that after some period of time the total acceleration amounts to 0. For UA this would actually require Earth to be going around in circles around a stationary satellite. And that would have to apply for each satellite.

Likewise it in no way addresses cavendish.

You cannot simply reject gravity and replace it with UA, it simply doesn't work.
Just like you can't simply reject gravity and replace it with weight magically falling for no reason.

I am confused by the phrasing, could you restate?
UA is almost, but not quite, universal.
It seems to act to accelerate almost everything, the Earth, the moon, the sun, and all the other stars and celestial objects.

But for things just above Earth, it doesn't. Instead they are only indirectly accelerated by Earth. This means a ball just above Earth when released appears to fall and hit Earth, while the sun, much higher above (but still quite low compared to the size of Earth) is accelerated upwards and thus doesn't appear to fall and hit Earth.

And these objects which are accelerated upwards are all accelerated up at the same rate, so they aren't separated or fall smashed together; even though they have vastly different sizes.

This raises serious questions for how all that is achieved and makes UA extremely complicated.

I think that is a valid criticism/question, however it is easily reconciled if one is so inclined.  For instance, there are those that conclude that the apparent acceleration variance is caused by other factors (like varying buoyant force, seismic activity, etc.) and so on.
And they can all be ruled out.
Buoyant force would have no effect in a vacuum chamber, or when the environment is controlled to make it the same. The accurate gravimeters use a ball falling in a vacuum.
Seismic activity would only work to explain fluctuations, not sustained variations, unless that seismic activity is Earth being torn apart.

So neither of those explain it.
Instead you would need to appeal to some other force like gravity, or claim the UA somehow penetrates Earth and acts on things, but only slightly (yet still manages to then accelerate things much higher, and raises the question of why that doesn't on the size of the object).

So we are told, yes!  In any case, the point was that no technology or science requires the shape of the earth to be anything particular.
And he specifically referred to a smartphone, which uses GPS. Not to mention it also has a clock (which keeps time accurately using GPS), which is based quite heavily on the shape of Earth, as a RE can actually explain different time zones and things like the sun setting.
If Earth was flat, we would have a vastly different time setup.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 08, 2021, 02:58:46 AM
@timeisup

"For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood."

Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.

"The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?"

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.  The people who study flat earth research are working on other problems - frequently the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence/data/science to the presumptive model.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

"What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?"

Could you turn this into a multiple choice question? What do you imagine options for "knowledge base"'s might be?

In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

"The idea of UA must have come about from somewhere and what many people would like to know is what body of research is it based on?"

As far as I know, UA originated from the tfes forums - but I don't know which one or which user :(. I am not a proponent.

"it's as if the whole concept of UA appeared out of thin air."

Yes, this is how ideas - especially radical scientific ones - often come into being.  The world was blindsided and transformed by some of them.  Though no man is an island, and nothing exists in a vacuum.

"It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on?"

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

"Where is the evidence for their case? Where is the evidence for UA?"

You misunderstand.  The posit for UA is a simple reference frame/convention reversal.  The evidence for "gravitation" IS the evidence for UA.  All that appears as a force pulling down, is actually a large force pushing everything up.  It is a fundamentally consistent and scientifically sound perspective / model.  You may do the same for the sky in astronomy.  There is no problem for the science/mathematics to define the sky/universe as moving and the earth as stationary.  It's just by arbitrated convention that we agree on such things.

It is funny and telling/meaningful that you (and most everyone else) mention myth (apples falling) when discussing the origins of the "science" of gravitation.

You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results? or any results for that matter. Its very easy to say you have carried out research...so where is it? how was it carried out? what was your methodology? Like many flat earth advocates you are big on words and non-existent on any proof to back up your claims.

The idea of the apple falling is just a nice story that has nothing to do with gravity and its validity.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 08, 2021, 03:16:54 AM
@jja

Quote
What exactly is your definition of "gravitation" and how does it differ from theories of gravity used in either Einstein's or Newton's works?

Specific definition (einsteinian, cavendishian, newtonian, epicurian) is irrelevant, it is the difference between gravity and gravitation, between scientific law and theory that is so commonly misunderstood.

Gravity is a natural law.  Natural law is a behavior of nature that is consistently and rigorously measured. It is bore through rigorous and repeated measurement alone.  The law of gravity is, in its roughest and most imprecise terms - what goes up, must come down.

Gravitation is a theory.  Theory is bore and refined through experiment.

The mathematical formulations further confuse/conflate things, as they introduce non-real (purely mathematical) entities borrowed from gravitation (theory) in their description of the real gravity (law).

You say you and others 'do' research on gravity.....now that is a hard one to swallow when one considers what is actually required to do meaningful research. Current research on gravity has gone beyond apples falling looking at how it operates on a universal scale by studying gravitational waves using detectors such as LIGO and other complex land and space based systems. What makes you imagine with no more than paper and a pencil that you and some others could provide some insight that can compete with current research and that has somehow eluded the greatest minds of the last 200 years. The fact is you imagine the earth is flat, which it is clearly is not, then you then proceed from that false premise trying to bend the laws of nature to fit with your false starting point. Its akin to making a fundamental mistake in the first line of a mathematical problem and trying to convince yourself that the final answer is correct.



Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 08, 2021, 05:10:55 AM
@jackblack

Quote
Do you mean a finite disc?

Possibly. Regardless of shape, the idea that the only shape it could be is a sphere merely because gravity exists is dumb.

If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb. 

But we have hundreds and thousands of other reasons and evidence that all confirm it.  Like people going into space and looking at it. 

We don't have any evidence showing it to be a cube, or flat.  Thinking it's flat without any evidence, that is dumb.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2021, 11:49:35 AM
like people going into space and looking at it. 

Seems an arduous task just to get a good view. Might as well just go here
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 08, 2021, 12:12:45 PM
@jja

Quote
If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb.

That was entirely my point.  I should have used the word "purely" instead of merely, but the same level of disdain would not have been conveyed.

Quote
Like people going into space and looking at it. 

So we see on tv, and nowhere else in reality.

Quote
Thinking it's flat without any evidence, that is dumb.

I could not agree more.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 08, 2021, 12:33:41 PM
@timeisup

Quote
You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results?

Don't be a credential worshipping simpleton/sycophant if you can at all help it.  Having private/personal labs and doing good work in them is absolutely feasible, likewise with having no "facilities" (beyond your own) or training at all.  Demanding/expecting published journal articles in this context is stupid/ignorant, and displays a fundamental lack of awareness of what the journal publishing racket is and what it does.  Sadly we don't all want to work towards knowledge/truth/the betterment of all mankind and then to share it with everyone :( - but we f*ing should!!! Also, the absolute nonsense I could show you in "published journals" - holy hannah.

Quote
Its very easy to say you have carried out research...so where is it? how was it carried out? what was your methodology?

That it is.  My particular focus is chiefly on historical (scientific history in particular) and philological research.  My research process is much the same as other historical researchers - nothing glamorous, mostly a lot of reading.

My research findings/conclusions are what I come to share with fine folks like yourself in the earnest pursuit of truth and, failing that lofty ideal, knowledge.

Quote
The idea of the apple falling is just a nice story that has nothing to do with gravity and its validity.

That's right, it has to do with the apocryphal history of its inception/origin.  As I said, it is telling/significant that you (and most others) think it (and therefore mention it in discussion, as you did).
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 08, 2021, 01:49:32 PM
@jja

Quote
If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb.

That was entirely my point.  I should have used the word "purely" instead of merely, but the same level of disdain would not have been conveyed.

Quote
Like people going into space and looking at it. 

So we see on tv, and nowhere else in reality.

Everyone who has been up there has seen it with their own eyes. But not you.

So I'm sure you also dispute the existence of the Great Pyramids, the Nile River, the top of Mt Everest and my backyard bird feeder because you personally haven't looked at them with your own eyes.  What conspiracy is out to fake the existence of the Netherlands, which I assume you haven't seen.  What organization is fooling people into thinking Nebraska exists?  Assuming you haven't been there either.

Does China exist?  Who made a billion cardboard cutouts to fake that?

Have you ever MET Putin? Checked his fingerprints and DNA to prove he's human? Is he a reptile alien?

How about whales?  Are whales real?  Have you touched one to make sure it's not a robotic submarine?

If you throw out every fact that you have not personally verified with your own eyes... then you live in a very tiny world where you know almost nothing.  And if you don't know anything, you certainly aren't an authority on the shape of world which remains a mystery to you.

You choosing to not believe any facts related to the Earth being round isn't proof of anything but your own opinion.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 08, 2021, 02:11:48 PM
@timeisup

Quote
You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results?

Don't be a credential worshipping simpleton/sycophant if you can at all help it.  Having private/personal labs and doing good work in them is absolutely feasible, likewise with having no "facilities" (beyond your own) or training at all.  Demanding/expecting published journal articles in this context is stupid/ignorant, and displays a fundamental lack of awareness of what the journal publishing racket is and what it does.  Sadly we don't all want to work towards knowledge/truth/the betterment of all mankind and then to share it with everyone :( - but we f*ing should!!! Also, the absolute nonsense I could show you in "published journals" - holy hannah.

Quote
Its very easy to say you have carried out research...so where is it? how was it carried out? what was your methodology?

That it is.  My particular focus is chiefly on historical (scientific history in particular) and philological research.  My research process is much the same as other historical researches - nothing glamorous, mostly a lot of reading.

My research findings/conclusions are what I come to share with fine folks like yourself in the earnest pursuit of truth and, failing that lofty ideal, knowledge.

Quote
The idea of the apple falling is just a nice story that has nothing to do with gravity and its validity.

That's right, it has to do with its apocryphal history of its inception/origin.  As I said, it is telling/significant that you (and most others) think it (and therefore mention it in discussion, as you did).

So what you really mean is you read stuff off the web and call it research.

If we start with a definition of research: a detailed study of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding:

Lets start by you sharing some of your new information on gravity along with your new understanding. Lets see if you can put some 'money where your mouth is'.



Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 02:13:46 PM
Care to address the points I made?

Do you accept that regardless of what material an object is made out of, if it is large enough gravity will be strong enough to crush into a sphere, and it is only a question of what size it is?
And because of that, do you accept that trying to compare Earth to a small object like a phone, to try to say because the phone isn't spherical Earth doesn't have to be, is a completely meaningless comparison, and that instead you should be comparing it to much larger objects, like other planets, the moon and stars (including the sun).
Do you accept that UA is only equivalent to gravity in a small local frame, and that you cannot simply replace gravity with UA and expect everything to work the same outside of a small local frame (e.g. you can't replace gravity with UA for cavendish)?
And because of that, do you accept that the entire body of evidence for gravity is not evidence for UA?
Do you accept that your explanation of why things fall due to weight is entirely inadequate, that without something like gravitational potential energy it violates the conservation of energy, and that it isn't simply a case of nothing holding it up, nor is it a simple case of you applied energy to push one way so it moves back?

And you can provide a distribution of mass to produce the observed gravitational acceleration, but with a flat Earth?

(and that is ignoring the lesser points which are more semantic like if Newton was a scientist or not, if knowledge is a subset of belief, and if technology uses the fact Earth is round; as well as your implications that you have evidence to dismiss gravity even though you provided none)

Quote
If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb.
That was entirely my point.  I should have used the word "purely" instead of merely, but the same level of disdain would not have been conveyed.
And it would be the same strawman.
Again, even ignoring the other evidence and focusing primarily on gravity, it is not a case of gravity exists, therefore everything is a sphere.
It is a case that gravity exists, and Earth is massive. So large that gravity will almost certainly crush it into a roughly spherical shape, unless it is infinite.

You would need to appeal to magical material, never heard of, with magical properties to prevent it.

Quote
Like people going into space and looking at it. 
So we see on tv, and nowhere else in reality.
If you don't want to trust the results yourself, you can go into space yourself.
But most people aren't that paranoid.

The simple fact is that going into space is the only way to see Earth entirely in your FOV in any meaningful way. And even low orbits are not entirely useful.

If you would like a comparison, as the RE has a diameter of roughly 13 Mm and the FE has a diameter of at least 40 Mm, then trying to view Earth from a mere 100 km (0.1 Mm) would equate to trying to visually judge the size of a 2 m wide table or a 2 m wide ball from a height of 5 mm (for FE) to 1.5 cm (for RE) above its surface.
Trying to judge Earth from 1 km would be equivalent to judging the table from far less than 1 mm. (0.15 mm for RE, 0.05 for FE).
And trying to judge it from just roughly 2 m (i.e. just a normal person walking around) would be equivalent to judging the table from 100 nm for the FE or 200 nm for the RE.

Would you try to judge the shape of any normal object like that?
Or would you instead stand away from it quite some distance?

Quote
Thinking it's flat without any evidence, that is dumb.
I could not agree more.
Glad you agree your position is dumb.

Quote
You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results?
Don't be a credential worshipping simpleton/sycophant
He didn't.
He didn't ask what degree you have, or what scientific institution you work at.
Instead he asked what facilities you have.

It doesn't matter if these facilities are part of a state of the art lab at a university, or jut things you have at home.
The point is that in order to meaningful research, you need some facilities.

Even a simple thing like a ruler is a facility.

Demanding/expecting published journal articles in this context is stupid/ignorant, and displays a fundamental lack of awareness of what the journal publishing racket is and what it does.
No it isn't.
It is incredible easy for someone to just spout a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.
They can even provide evidence and then make claims which are not supported by the evidence.

While peer review is not perfect, it helps to prevent that kind of wild speculation.
But yes, BS can get through.
And with standards of wanting things to be significant, some less significant things can get overlooked.

That it is.  My particular focus is chiefly on historical (scientific history in particular) and philological research.  My research process is much the same as other historical researches - nothing glamorous, mostly a lot of reading.
So nothing to actually refute gravity or the fact that Earth is round?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 08, 2021, 08:09:07 PM
@timeisup

Quote
So what you really mean is you read stuff off the web and call it research.

What are you, a ludite/amish? No offense intended if so, however - yes, most modern research is done on computer using the "web". Your disdain for information technology seems most out of place - perhaps you are a classicist or librarian?

Quote
Lets start by you sharing some of your new information on gravity along with your new understanding

I am not here to share new information (minimally, if any).  I'm mostly here to share old information!  As I said, my most rigorous area of study is historical analysis.  What I (and many others) have found is not new, it's old.

I have already made several statements consisting of "my", old, information in this thread - but I will try to restate/formalize for discussion :

1. Newton did not invent gravity, he invoked epicurean gravity.

2. Newton asked that his name not be associated with gravity because of how philosophically unsound it was and generally anathema to science.

3. There is no experimental validation of gravitation that exists or is possible, which newton well understood.  The theory of gravitation is unscientific by karl popper's "requisite falsifiability" criteria alone.

4. Both mass and gravity as exist in modern (supposed newtonian) equation are non-real, purely mathematical entities. Neither have any demonstrable reality, nor are they defined rigorously enough to begin.

5. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.  It is not imbued by fictional fields of any kind. It is a property of the matter itself, as archimedes understood and described.  Archimedes principle provides the backbone for the mathematical description and experimental proof of the cause of gravity (the law, not the theory of gravitation!).

6. Incorrect definitions of science, scientific method, experiment, and hypothesis are taught to the vast majority, which contributes to their inability to understand science and how it progresses historically. Many famous examples, such as the cavendish experiment - for instance, are merely observations/measurements, NOT experiments.  In the case of the cavendish observations/apparatus, no one involved with it at the time was under the illusion that it was an experiment - which is why it was never referred to as one by anyone at the time.

That should be ample for now.  I have discovered many more interesting things in my research though!

Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 08, 2021, 08:59:40 PM
@timeisup

There is no progress in gravitational physics of much note, and I suspect I have solved why.  There are things on the fringes with superconductors, phonons and the like but the core of gravity is still "?" as it always was ever since newton waved his magic wand and first invoked it. 

LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.  Time will tell if any of that is replicable (i.e. actually science), and the interpretation is garbage/widely publicized propaganda in any case.  It's all to confuse laypeople into thinking gravity has finally been detected (and that the "weekend at bernies" relativity theory is alive and well).  It hasn't and we wouldn't even know where or how to look for such a thing - again, IF it existed.

Quote
What makes you imagine with no more than paper and a pencil that you and some others could provide some insight that can compete with current research and that has somehow eluded the greatest minds of the last 200 years.

Brilliant insight, and especially innovation, can come from anywhere (and in the case of innovation, often has to).  In this case, they are simply digging in the wrong place.  Intellect and ability isn't as relevant when you are trying to find something that doesn't exist (but you believe MUST, due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education).

Quote
The fact is you imagine the earth is flat

Actually, no.  I imagine it COULD be, and very much appears to be locally, but I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.  Instead, my research has lead me to conclude that the world (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.

Quote
which it is clearly is not

Double-blind, this statement is untrue.  We know this from asking little children what they think the world's shape is before they have been taught otherwise.  We also know this from basic observation. The world appears flat, this is clear.  You are saying, clearly it is not BECAUSE we are taught it is not and naturally our education is flawless...

Quote
then you then proceed from that false premise trying to bend the laws of nature to fit with your false starting point.

This is a common misconception.  I empathize with it, as it is advantageous to be able to "see" through imagination - but it is important to remind yourself that you are no oracle, and all it is is imaginings. 

My experience and perspective is very different than your attempt at imagining it.  Personally, I started out with simple research questions like "When and how was gravity experimentally validated?".  One of the earlier questions I began with was "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?" - in fact that research question is still open, though the presumptive answer is sometime in the 1950's / 1960's by the american military (nasa).

Many flat earth researchers have a similar experience to mine, and many more began simply by trying to debunk and help the poor, sick, deluded "flat earthers".

************UPDATE****************

Although I would very much like to respond, this site is having issues and I have received 503 errors for 12+ hours now - could one of you please let the admins know? I believe I've sent a PM to john davis about it, but I don't know if that will reach them (or if they are the right person to contact about it)

********UPDATE2*******************

This problem appears to be thread specific.  It is only in this particular thread that I have this issue. Highly curious.

********UPDATE3*******************

It was all my fault :( I wish the site would have notified me that my comment was too long to post in one go, instead of just showing me 503 errors...
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 10:05:04 PM
Again, care to address the points I made? Or will you just ignore them as if your claims haven't been refuted?

yes, most modern research is done on computer using the "web".
Not primary scientific research.
That requires doing experiments to obtain data.
It would only be secondary research that can be done like that, were you look at the data and results of others.

3. There is no experimental validation of gravitation that exists or is possible, which newton well understood.  The theory of gravitation is unscientific by karl popper's "requisite falsifiability" criteria alone.
Pure BS.
While that may have been the case for Newton, it is not now.
There is plenty of experimental verification for gravity, and it is quite falsifiable (at the hypothetical level, i.e. being able to do an experiment and testing predictions from gravity, where if those predictions are false, then gravity is wrong).

And it is far more falsifiable than things just magically falling for no reason at all.

4. Both mass and gravity as exist in modern (supposed newtonian) equation are non-real, purely mathematical entities. Neither have any demonstrable reality, nor are they defined rigorously enough to begin.
Again, pure BS.
Ignoring the mass-energy equivalence, mass is quite real as easily measured due to inertia. Likewise, the force, real or apparent, produced by gravity can cause an object to accelerate or can be measured as a force such as on a scale.

5. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.  It is not imbued by fictional fields of any kind. It is a property of the matter itself, as archimedes understood and described.  Archimedes principle provides the backbone for the mathematical description and experimental proof of the cause of gravity (the law, not the theory of gravitation!).
You have no cause. You just claim things magically fall for no reason at all.

Why should things just fall for no reason at all?

Many famous examples, such as the cavendish experiment - for instance, are merely observations/measurements, NOT experiments.
So something even you call an experiment, you say is not an experiment.

but the core of gravity is still "?" as it always was ever since newton waved his magic wand and first invoked it.
And the same could be said of all fundamental forces. Ultimately you will reach a point where we simply don't know.
Why do charges attract or repel one another?
Sure, you can appeal to an electric field, just like you can appeal to a gravitational field or the curvature of spacetime.
But then there is the question of why does a charge create a field in the first place? And why does it interact with that field?

Does that mean you likewise reject all of science and instead just appeal to the magic of "innate properties"?
Or is it only gravity you look at with such distain?

LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.
They sure seem to be measuring them.
Could you explain why you think they cannot measure gravitational waves?

Instead, my research has lead me to conclude that the world (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.
You mean your history and language (or did you mean philosophy) research, which has absolutely no bearing on the shape of Earth and could not possibly indicate Earth cannot be spherical?

Quote
which it is clearly is not
Double-blind, this statement is untrue.  We know this from asking little children what they think the world's shape is before they have been taught otherwise.  We also know this from basic observation. The world appears flat, this is clear.  You are saying, clearly it is not BECAUSE we are taught it is not and naturally our education is flawless...
And again, stated with all the certainty of a religious zealot.
We know Earth isn't flat and instead is roughly spherical, due the abundant evidence indicating that.
Sure, not everyone will, the vast majority of people will just accept Earth is round due to being taught that in school and not being so paranoid to think there is massive global conspiracy to fake all the evidence that Earth is round and thus accept the photos from space provided by many different space agencies.
But that doesn't mean everyone is like that.
Plenty of people actually understand the evidence and have obtained at least some of the evidence themselves.

We say it is clearly not because plenty of observations do not match a flat Earth.

And it doesn't take going to space to find out Earth is round. That is just the simplest as you can see the object from quite some distance and determine its shape directly, just like if I held out a ball and spun it around.

One of the earlier questions I began with was "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?" - in fact that research question is still open, though the presumptive answer is sometime in the 1950's / 1960's by the american military (nasa).
Then you aren't very good at history.
While it is still an open question, that is due to how ancient it is.
The Ancient Greeks new Earth was round. They were even capable of determining a way to measure the radius of Earth.
We likely wont know who first determined the world was roughly a sphere, nor exactly what their reasons for doing so were.
But we do know it was long before NASA.
But thanks for showing you think RE is just a big NASA conspiracy.
It was an experiment. It tested a hypothesis and at the same time provided a measurement.
Before it was done it was not able to create a numerical prediction, as the value of G was not known, but it did still have the prediction of a particular way the masses would interact due to gravity.
If this wasn't the case, they would not have been able to get a value of G out of the experiment, or it would be deemed to be below the experimental detection limit, with the latter potentially having serious implications for Earth and raising serious red flags for gravity.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 09, 2021, 01:26:54 AM
@timeisup

There is no progress in gravitational physics of much note, and I suspect I have solved why.  There are things on the fringes with superconductors, phonons and the like but the core of gravity is still "?" as it always was ever since newton waved his magic wand and first invoked it. 

LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.  Time will tell if any of that is replicable (i.e. actually science), and the interpretation is garbage/widely publicized propaganda in any case.  It's all to confuse laypeople into thinking gravity has finally been detected (and that the "weekend at bernies" relativity theory is alive and well).  It hasn't and we wouldn't even know where or how to look for such a thing - again, IF it existed.

Quote
What makes you imagine with no more than paper and a pencil that you and some others could provide some insight that can compete with current research and that has somehow eluded the greatest minds of the last 200 years.

Brilliant insight, and especially innovation, can come from anywhere (and in the case of innovation, often has to).  In this case, they are simply digging in the wrong place.  Intellect and ability isn't as relevant when you are trying to find something that doesn't exist (but you believe MUST, due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education).

Quote
The fact is you imagine the earth is flat

Actually, no.  I imagine it COULD be, and very much appears to be locally, but I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.  Instead, my research has lead me to conclude that the world (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.

Quote
which it is clearly is not

Double-blind, this statement is untrue.  We know this from asking little children what they think the world's shape is before they have been taught otherwise.  We also know this from basic observation. The world appears flat, this is clear.  You are saying, clearly it is not BECAUSE we are taught it is not and naturally our education is flawless...

Quote
then you then proceed from that false premise trying to bend the laws of nature to fit with your false starting point.

This is a common misconception.  I empathize with it, as it is advantageous to be able to "see" through imagination - but it is important to remind yourself that you are no oracle, and all it is is imaginings. 

My experience and perspective is very different than your attempt at imagining it.  Personally, I started out with simple research questions like "When and how was gravity experimentally validated?".  One of the earlier questions I began with was "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?" - in fact that research question is still open, though the presumptive answer is sometime in the 1950's / 1960's by the american military (nasa).

Many flat earth researchers have a similar experience to mine, and many more began simply by trying to debunk and help the poor, sick, deluded "flat earthers".

In a nutshell, you are a conspiracy proponent at your core who trawls the net looking for little cherry like snippets that can be stitched together to create some alternate reality that reflects your own belief where the truth is irrelevant.

To internally firm your foundations  and create your alternate reality you make unsupported claims about the greatest minds in history and then claim some of the most technologically complex experiments that have been put together are bogus! Along with a string of other claims regarding the old chestnut NASA! This is the oldest ploy in history  discredit your opponents to make yourself appear to be on firmer ground.
The other is to bend the truth and tell blatant lies.

For example you claim:
no progress is being made in gravitation research!
You claim LIGO and its research are bogus and worthless
You then make it sound as though you have some authority in the fields you speak about when in reality you have none.

Letís have some honesty here. Letís start by you explaining your claim regarding LIGO. How have you determined itís a fraud?

Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 09, 2021, 04:48:43 AM
LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.

Citation needed.

Care to list all these widely publicized allegations of fraud?

And what exactly are the differences between 'gravity waves' and 'gravitational waves' and where are you getting your definitions?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 09, 2021, 10:09:24 AM
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

I hope you do not take offense, you provided me with a LOT to respond to.  I mean to respond in kind, though life gets in the way...

Quote
And just why do you think it is dumb?
It is quite sound.

Because it is an insane and unjustifiable leap to say that purely because gravity exists the earth must be spherical.  It just doesn't follow.  When steeped in the mythology, it makes some sense - but not objectively in and of itself (the statement proper).

Quote
The are only a few main forces holding objects together:

So far that we have divined, yes.  Gravity is not a force (it's also not measurable or real, but I digress).  Not to modern physicists anyhow.

Quote
But it isn't that simple, that puts the entire system under pressure and typically results in the object being more dense that it would be without gravity, increasing it even more. Eventually you have enough gravity to overcome the electromagnetic force and have the object collapse.And this applies regardless of the shape.

This is one of many paradoxes/holes in the nonsense of gravitation.  If everything pulls everything - where is the reference point?  If I am in the center of the earth, am I crushed by the weight of both sides, weightless because the forces balance, or torn apart by the massive gravity of each hemisphere?  Don't bother to answer, unless you think you can demonstrate it - otherwise this is a rhetorical/"how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" question. 

Quote
If you keep doing this, you will eventually reach a large enough pressure to cause the object to fail.

Right, and then it will crumple and fold.  No reason for spheres and that's probably a reason why we see so few of them in nature.

Quote
This means that gravity will create a maximum size to any object, and it is only a question of what that size is.

Uh oh - that's black hole talk.  It's like the nihilism of physics.  Turn back, seek the light.

Lol, I hear you loud and clear.   Personally, I stand with einstein on this one - black holes are mathematical fiction.  Sure things can be too large to support their weight, but gravity isn't real and is unneeded to describe the phenomenon anyhow (mathematically or otherwise).


Quote
Find me an object in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which is not roughly spherical.

Oceans, lakes, the sky, clouds, mountains, deserts, bedrock, valleys, hilltops... jeeze, maybe I should try it from the other direction.  What is in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which IS roughly spherical? Nothing in this world it would seem :(

Quote
You know, at the size range that gravity would crush it into a sphere. (which for rocky material is roughly 600 km.)

It would depend on the material properties, spacing, and orientation.  A sphere - or sphere-ish is a possible outcome, I agree - but the initial shape and structure would likely need to be sphere-ish too to expect that outcome.

Quote
So you should easily be able to provide one, rather than just telling me to use my imagination.

That's true! I could do that!  But why? It's your hang-up - though I'm happy to try and help in any way I can.  You seem to be ever-so-coyly intimating that you disagree with what I have explained to you so far regarding this question.  There isn't only one configuration that could be compatible/consistent with what we observe, especially if you consider, potentially, the known world to be subset of the total (yet unexplored / unknown) world.

Quote
Yes, you seem to just be interested in discarding reality with no just cause and coming up with whatever excuses you can to pretend it all works fine.

Everything is not always as it seems.  I know you imagine this to be the case, but this is not my perspective or experience.  In point of fact it is I who am accusing you of discarding reality, but it will take time to flesh that out / establish that.

Quote
See if you actually cared about the truth you would be interested in developing a model which explains all that the mainstream model already explains.

You misunderstand what models are and what they are for.  They are not for explanation (though occasionally they can be used for that), and they most certainly are not for determining the shape of any physical object with certainty.  Models are meta-scientific tools, nothing more.  All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful for a time.

Quote
You have had that time. People thought Earth was flat before they realised it was round.

This isn't really true.  It is propaganda we are all taught as the result of an american fiction writer from the 19th century.  No culture or peoples thought the world was flat in the historical record.

Quote
But a big issue with developing the model and it taking so long was new phenomenon being discovered and better measurements being able to more accurately determine things and being able to travel all over the world.

Again, no science of technology depends on the shape of the earth.  The means of conveyance to travel the world do not depend on its sphericity, nor were they created because of it.

Quote
You have all that now, and thus it shouldn't take you anywhere near as long.

You misunderstand, there is no tool available to us now that lets us measure the sphericity of the entire world any more than there was then.  It is not fundamentally easier for an individual person with all their wondrous modern technology to go out and measure the world today than it was millennia ago. It is a fantastically huge undertaking, and one that has been neglected for all of human history.

Quote
They are the hypothesis which is tested to check if it matches reality.
Unless you are making models and testing them, you aren't doing science.

No, hypotheses are hypotheses.  Models are models.  They are not synonyms nor interchangeable.  You aren't doing science unless you are rigorously adhering to the scientific method!

Quote
That is a very limited view.

It is an undeniable fact, bordering on tautology.  There is no other method to determine the shape of physical objects with certainty.

Quote
There is no tool in existence like a tape measure which can simply measure Earth.

Exactly what I was saying above! Not simply - no, but of course a tiny spoon can scoop the ocean given enough time. Working together, many hands make light work.

Quote
The best you can do is a tool which measures small portions of Earth, which then has errors with combining it into a much larger MODEL

Model (the word) isn't usually used that way in a scientific context, though you are not technically wrong.  Typically that would be called a composite.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with taking some measurements one day, and others the next.  At the end you have measurements, which you can use to make a model if you wish for some further purpose - but what you collect are measurments.

Quote
The closest you could get to direct measurements are satellites taking pictures of Earth from many angles (which show it is round). Even then it is still a model.

Pictures make poor "measurements".  They are inferential at best and subject to many known sources of error.  Many times what is seen is not what is, and direct measurement is always required when good accuracy is as well.

Quote
The more sane and scientific approach

There is only one of those, it is called the scientific method, and though it has many flavors none of them involve a "model" step.  The scientific method has no use in determining the shape of physical objects. Only rigorous and repeated measurement can do that (even if those measurements must be taken in sections over time, due to the size of the object)
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 09, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
It doesn't matter what you want to call it, it is a replacement.

Somewhat fair, however I am not really suggesting a replacement.  Just criticizing and recommending discarding the purely mathematical fiction of mass and gravitation.  What is left after that discarding is the de facto replacement, but there need not be any at all. I am only stating/descibing what is left - not suggesting a replacement.

Quote
If it is pretty simple, why can't you explain it?
Why should mass make anything fall?

Matter doesn't make things fall.  The energy used to lift them does.  If matter is in equilibrium, then it doesn't move (much) at all. Wether matter will fall, rise, or neither when put in disequilibrium is described by archimedes principle and is experimentally validatable (in stark contrast to gravitation).

Quote
No, with the conviction of someone with understanding, dismissing wild claims.

Wild is good.  No understanding, conviction or otherwise, should preclude or otherwise avoid wild.  That's where all the good (and new/different) stuff is!  Dismissing is easy, why come to a site such as this to just dismiss some more? Why not consider earnestly instead?  You can still dismiss, but at the end you can do so whilst better informed and having actually evaluated first!

Quote
No, because I have seen and obtained evidence clearly showing gravity, and know that your attempt to replace it doesn't work as it fails to address so much.


As i keep clarifying, there is no replacement being discussed. We are talking about a demo job.  What will or should ultimately take its place (if anything) is a WAY premature topic of discussion currently. That said, I am VERY interested in any contrary/contradictory data and/or perspecitves! What evidence have you seen and obtained clearly showing "gravitation" to be a real, clearly defined, and measurable entity?

Once again, I must reiterate that gravty and gravitation are seperate and distinct, contrary to popular belief/understanding.  Gravity is easily observable and demonstrable.  That's why it is a law!  That's the only thing that CAN make/establish a scientific law, consistent and repeated observation (measurement).  The mathematical description of that law currently used by many include fictional/non-real/purely mathematical terms taken from the theory of gravitation - namely mass and gravity.  It is NOT coincidence that they anhilate one another and return to the same measured weight they began as.  Neither is in any way real, and yes - I am aware of how wild and heretical that statement is.

Quote
rather than attempting to show anything wrong with it, or provide a viable alternative, you just dismiss it as fake, with the typical certainty of the common religious zealot.

Now that would be zealotry! Thankfully I am not dismissing anything as fake, and I am attempting to (and will continue as long as you wish it in earnest) explain/show what is wrong with it right now!  One of the most fundamental issues with gravitation is that it is unvalidated speculation (at best) with no experimental or empirical support.  Newton understood that it was an unscientific idea that was never going to be experimentally validatable, but subsequent students weren't taught about it correctly/honestly/thoroughly.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 09, 2021, 10:23:26 AM
Once again, I must reiterate that gravty and gravitation are seperate and distinct, contrary to popular belief/understanding

You still haven't answered where you are getting your definition of 'gravitation' from. What is your source?

You can't just redefine words and make up definitions to present as evidence for your ideas.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2021, 02:02:34 PM
I hope you do not take offense, you provided me with a LOT to respond to.  I mean to respond in kind, though life gets in the way...
That's okay.
As long as you get around to responding. I didn't think you would, but you have shown I was wrong about that assumption.
I will try to be more patient next time.


Because it is an insane and unjustifiable leap to say that purely because gravity exists the earth must be spherical.  It just doesn't follow.
I have explained why it does follow. All that is left out is the exact math. But as that depends on material properties, if you wish to assert that Earth is made of some material which magical material properties, then that changes the math (by changing a value) and anything is possible.
It also depends on the matter distribution.

This is one of many paradoxes/holes in the nonsense of gravitation.  If everything pulls everything - where is the reference point?  If I am in the center of the earth, am I crushed by the weight of both sides, weightless because the forces balance, or torn apart by the massive gravity of each hemisphere?
That isn't' a paradox, nor a hole, nor does it show anything nonsensical about gravity.
I don't know exactly what you mean by reference point.
Each little bit of mass pulls things towards it.
If you want to look at a system of masses interacting, then the centre of mass is the reference point (as without an external force, the centre of mass must remain at a constant velocity). For example, for the Earth and Moon, the reference point is the Earth-Moon barycenter, which both orbit.

As for your example of a being in the centre of Earth, firstly, if you are in the direct centre of a spherically symmetric shell of mass, then the gravitational pull to each bit of mass on that shell is the same magnitude but in different directions. These all cancel each other out due to the spherical symmetry resulting in no net attraction, so there is no gravitational force acting on you.

However, there is gravitational force acting on all the matter above you (i.e. towards the outside of the sphere). This is trying to accelerate it towards the centre. To stop this, it needs a force applied to push it outwards. Without such a force it will compress the matter below it, this pressurises that matter, causing it to push in all directions, including down, compressing that below it and up, stopping the material above falling.
This means the material further out will presurise Earth and thus you will have all that force acting on you, pressurising you.
So you would be crushed by the weight of the Earth.

Just like if someone where to place a tank on top of you, or some other very heavy object, you are not crushed by your weight, by your gravitational attraction to Earth, but by that of the object with you needing to support it.

As for being ripped apart, that would be due to tidal forces, not the direct action of gravity. But at this scale they are insignificant, and more importantly, inside a spherically symetric hollow shell, regardless of wher eyou are, the net acceleration due to gravity fro that shell is 0.


Quote
If you keep doing this, you will eventually reach a large enough pressure to cause the object to fail.
Right, and then it will crumple and fold.  No reason for spheres and that's probably a reason why we see so few of them in nature.
It will either crumple/fold/collapse into an object which is smaller than the limit, or it will continue to collapse until it is roughly spherical.

We see plenty of spheres in nature. We just also see lots of tiny object, well below the limit, being held together by electrostatic interactions which give the material compressive strength.

Quote
This means that gravity will create a maximum size to any object, and it is only a question of what that size is.
Uh oh - that's black hole talk.
No, it wasn't meant as a discussion of black holes. It was a maximum size to any object before it necessarily be a roughly spherical shape.


Quote
Find me an object in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which is not roughly spherical.
Oceans, lakes, the sky, clouds, mountains, deserts, bedrock, valleys, hilltops... jeeze
All part of the same roughly spherical object, Earth.

What is in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which IS roughly spherical?
Earth, the sun, the moon, the other planets in the solar system, the dwarf planets of the solar system, including large asteroids.
It seems plenty is large and roughly spherical.

But to find something that large, you can't be looking on Earth, you need to look off Earth.
Any sufficiently large object to be crushed by gravity that is on Earth, would become part of Earth.

It would depend on the material properties, spacing, and orientation.  A sphere - or sphere-ish is a possible outcome, I agree - but the initial shape and structure would likely need to be sphere-ish too to expect that outcome.
Nope, it doesn't matter what the initial shape is. If you have a final object that is larger than that size, it will be roughly spherical.
You can have it start larger and nothing like a sphere, and then collapse and end up smaller and still not a sphere, but that is then an object smaller than the size limit.
The only question is how spherical. If it spins it will be oblate, and if it spins fast enough you can make it squashed.

Quote
So you should easily be able to provide one, rather than just telling me to use my imagination.
That's true! I could do that!  But why?
Because you asserted it is possible for a finite flat Earth to exist with the gravitational attraction that is observed.
And so far, you have done nothing to justify that assertion and instead just repeated it.

So if you think it is easy to do it, why not do it?

You misunderstand what models are and what they are for.  They are not for explanation (though occasionally they can be used for that), and they most certainly are not for determining the shape of any physical object with certainty.  Models are meta-scientific tools, nothing more.  All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful for a time.
Models are scientific tools.
They are used to make predictions from models to test/refine the model.
They are then also used as engineering tools to make things based upon these models.
And for other purposes, such as navigation.

It is also important scientifically to have models to develop an overall consistent view of the universe, rather than having a bunch of isolated ideas which work for what they were made up for, but cause massive problems/contradictions elsewhere.

But I do almost agree with 1 point.
All models that pass tests are approximations, which a limited range of usefulness.
And with that comes varying degrees of accuracy with the model, with the model chosen depending on the level of accuracy needed.

For example, you can model Earth as a sphere, an oblate spheroid, a geoid or following the surface topography, depending on what level of detail is needed.
But there is a big difference between an approximation, and it just being wrong.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2021, 02:03:57 PM
Quote
But a big issue with developing the model and it taking so long was new phenomenon being discovered and better measurements being able to more accurately determine things and being able to travel all over the world.
Again, no science of technology depends on the shape of the earth.
And that is not what I said. Instead a said that new things were discovered which had to be incorporated into the model, and that we have more accurate measurements now.

You misunderstand, there is no tool available to us now that lets us measure the sphericity of the entire world any more than there was then.
Sure there is. We have quite accurate surveying and mapping tools.
These allow us to make highly accurate maps of the world. Accurate to a few m or even better.
We can even map oceans.
But even mapping just continents and having a rough idea of the distances between them will allow one to show that Earth cannot be flat and instead must be roughly spherical.

Likewise, with solar filter and solar scopes, we can easily establish the sun must be very far away and quite large, from simultaneous observations of it from around Earth and throughout the day. Then using the angle to the sun we can quickly establish just how large this round Earth must be.
We can also measure things like the transit of Venus, or just the direct distance to Venus using radar to establish the size of orbits.

And if we still have satellites, or the technology to make them/go to space, we still have literal pictures from space showing us Earth and how all the continents are arranged.

Yes, it is still a large undertaking, but it is vastly easier to do now than it was to do through history.

No, hypotheses are hypotheses.  Models are models.  They are not synonyms nor interchangeable.
A hypothesis can be either an extremely simple and almost worthless statement, or an actual model. So models do have a big role in the scientific method.

Quote
That is a very limited view.
It is an undeniable fact, bordering on tautology. There is no other method to determine the shape of physical objects with certainty.
It is a quite deniable, false assertion.
This is just an excuse to dismiss all that which isn't a direct measurement of Earth to pretend there is no justification for Earth being round.

Even mathematically it is completely unsound, where lots of questions/problems in math (at least in geometry) are about giving you some information (equivalent to a direct measurement), and using it to determine another piece of information.
And some things are defined by that.
For example, with a parabola, you don't need to directly measure it to determine it is a parabola. Instead by measuring the distance to a specific line and a specific point, from points along the parabola you can establish that it is a parabola.

Pictures make poor "measurements".  They are inferential at best and subject to many known sources of error.  Many times what is seen is not what is, and direct measurement is always required when good accuracy is as well.
The closest you have for a direct measurement of the entire Earth, are photos from space.
Direct measurement is not required for good accuracy. It depends upon what you are trying to accurately measure, and how accurately you are trying to.
In some cases, a direct measurement is more limited in accuracy than a non-direct measurement.

This is true for flat surfaces, which direct measurements of flatness is quite limited and instead optical flats using an indirect measurement of interference patterns provides a much more accurate measure.
Even the more "direct" methods still use a reference surface and measure relative to that.

the purely mathematical fiction of mass and gravitation.
You mean the evidence based gravity/gravitation that you don't like.

What is left after that discarding
Is that things just float as there is no reason for them to fall.

Matter doesn't make things fall.  The energy used to lift them does.
Already demonstrated that doesn't work as if it did, the energy used to push something to the right should cause it to move to the left.
You seemed to ignore that entirely.

Rather than conserving energy you are destroying it and creating it.

Wild is good.
Not when simply made as a claim with no justification or evidence at all.

As i keep clarifying, there is no replacement being discussed.
And as I keep pointing out, you are providing a replacement even if you don't want it to be one. Not providing a replacement would be saying we have no idea why things fall at all.
But regardless of if you want to replace it or simply reject that doesn't deal with the evidence for it.

What evidence have you seen and obtained clearly showing "gravitation" to be a real, clearly defined, and measurable entity?
The simplest is a setup akin to the cavendish experiment, which you can find all over youtube.
But less direct are all the satellites used for GPS.
And there is plenty more in the scientific literature. Unless you are planning on dismissing it all as fake?

However it isn't an entity, no more so than electomagnetism is an entity.
It doesn't need to be an entity to be real.

Once again, I must reiterate that gravty and gravitation are seperate and distinct
Pure semantics. An attempt to separate things falling from the universal attraction of mass, to pretend that one is real while the other is fake.
They are the same thing. Gravity is caused by gravitation, and gravity can also refer to gravitation in general.

Gravity is easily observable and demonstrable.  That's why it is a law!
You mean the universal law of gravitation?
A law is a mathematical relationship.
For gravity, that is either the simple F=GMm/r^2, or the much more complex GR.

Rejecting all that you just have "things fall", no constant rate (as it varies around Earth, another big thing falling being intrinsic can't explain), no explanation for the variation in rate.

And according to some, that law can be part of a hypothesis, not yet actually tested.
But to test it you need to make predictions based upon that law and then check if they match what is observed.

Thankfully I am not dismissing anything as fake
So you accept that gravity and gravitation are real? Because you sure seem to be dismissing them as fake and doing whatever you can to ignore the experimental evidence for it. You repeatedly dismiss that evidence for it when you claim it has no experimental or empirical support.

You aren't even showing anything wrong with it and instead are just trying to claim it isn't supported (by ignoring the evidence), and appealing to people not getting the history of it right and making allegedly false claims about it.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 09, 2021, 06:59:13 PM
@stash

Sorry I missed your post in the shuffle!  Sadly, I owe many others responses as well...

Quote
How so?

As I've explained to timeisup, there are many configurations which could approximate the data we have for the "gravitational strength" over the known world and NOT be spherical.  This is especially true if the known bounds of the world are not the totality of it (perhaps even a minority).

Quote
Instead of working on the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence, focus on a functional map. That is the Holy Grail for FET.

There is no reason to feel this way.  A perfect map is the "holy grail" of the cartographer.  The grail for flat earth researchers is to establish the true shape of the world and share the information with others.  Your feelings are purely your own on this one as far as I know. I know of no one, flat earth researcher or otherwise, who is actively involved with cartography (there are "geodicists" / gps geeks, but that is very different) - do you?

In any case, you cannot infer the shape of the world from a map.  Maps are not for the purpose of establishing the shape of things - unless they are topographical - and even in that case - water is not measured ( nor are most massively deep things beneath it ) for them.

Quote
As far as disposal is concerned, are you suggesting that engineers remove all gravity equations from their calculations when designing an airplane or a roller coaster and rely solely on the Archimedes Principle?

Yes to the disposal, no to relying solely on one relationship created over 2 millennia ago to build things.

Quote
Nothing like overstating the obvious in too many words. Science should focus on facts. Got it.

I am overly verbose at times, but I put some effort into choosing my words carefully.  Facts are merely what your authority tells you are facts (many of which are untrue) - science should focus on rigorous adherence to the scientific method.  The older I get, the more I side with newton and planck - experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal; all else is little more than poetry and imagination.

Quote
How is it stupid and unscientific when we apply his principles to almost everything that is engineered today? Yes, I understand this is an appeal to authority, but what isn't really? It's also an appeal to reality.

You're not really grasping my position, I'm sure not for the least of reasons that I have not yet fully conveyed it to you.  Regarding that verbosity - there is a lot to explain, and it takes time.

The equations work because weight is real.  It is NOT coincidence that when you multiply the 2 purely mathematical (non-real) entities of mass and gravity together they return to the real weight they were originally measured as by newton himself when establishing the relationships.  Do you follow?

Quote
Is there some hurdle that is preventing you from using the quote feature? When one does use it, it preserves some semblance of context and allows later readers to quickly click back to the original post to gather perhaps even more context.

The short answer is yes.  The longer answer is the quote buttons weren't displaying and I couldn't be bothered.  As for using the quote function on each and every post reply, that needlessly clutters threads and doesn't help focus the response the same way as individual lines quoted.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2021, 07:31:43 PM
In any case, you cannot infer the shape of the world from a map.
Sure you can.
Maps show the locations of many points, and allows you to determine the distance between these points and the direction from one point to another. At least if you understand the type of map/projection used. This allows you to determine the shape of the object, or at least the mapped portion of it. Either with surface features if it is a topographic map, or without them and instead focusing on the underlying shape.

For example, if the multitude of globe maps are accurate, the only shape Earth can be is a shape which is roughly spherical. The accuracy of the map limits the accuracy of the shape.

And conversely, if Earth was not a globe, then the map could not be accurate all over. There would need to be massive areas which are incorrect.


As an example, consider the azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the north pole.
Based upon the properties of this map, i.e. how it works, we can know that the lines connecting the north pole to the southern "rim" which runs straight north-south, are all of equal length, and that all the circles are circles where every point is the same distance from the north pole.
Then based upon how the distance between 2 lines of longitude varies with latitude, i.e. how that scale varies, you can connect all the lines of longitude with circles placed the appropriate distance apart.
In doing so, you bend the lines of longitude into semi-circles, and end up creating a globe.

In order for it to not be a globe, the scale must be off.

Likewise, if it the same map, but as presented by FEers as a flat Earth map, which would thus have a constant scale, is correct, then the surface must be flat (by which I mean it has a Gaussian curvature of 0.
Sure, it could be one of a number of different overall shapes but they are all flat in that sense and are topologically equivalent to a flat surface.

the 2 purely mathematical (non-real) entities of mass and gravity
Why do you keep asserting that mass isn't real?
It is used in far more than just gravity.
One key thing is in the relationship F=ma.
If you apply a force to an object, you will accelerate it based upon its mass. This is used in many applications.

We also know this is not simply a scaled version of weight, because mass is the same even when gravity varies and thus weight varies.

So mass is without a doubt real.
Likewise, we can measure just how quickly objects will accelerate on Earth, so again, gravitational acceleration is without a doubt real.
And that acceleration and mass combine to give weight. Or alternatively, the mass and weight combine to give the acceleration.

But again, they are not entities, just like weight isn't an entity.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Groit on January 10, 2021, 08:15:24 AM
5. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.  It is not imbued by fictional fields of any kind. It is a property of the matter itself, as archimedes understood and described.  Archimedes principle provides the backbone for the mathematical description and experimental proof of the cause of gravity (the law, not the theory of gravitation!).

I always thought that weight and mass are separate, and that's why in science, we always measure mass in kg and weight in Newtons.
The new definition of mass the 'kg' is calculated using the Planck's constant 'h', the speed of light 'c' and the frequency of the caesium-133 atom. It has nothing to do with weight. 
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Platonius21 on January 11, 2021, 08:12:21 AM

5. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.  It is not imbued by fictional fields of any kind. It is a property of the matter itself, as archimedes understood and described.  Archimedes principle provides the backbone for the mathematical description and experimental proof of the cause of gravity (the law, not the theory of gravitation!).

You have it exactly wrong. Mass is a property of matter.  Weight is determined by the attraction of the earth. On the moon your weight is less than it is on earth; on Jupiter it would be much greater.  But your mass is the same in all three situations.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Platonius21 on January 11, 2021, 08:19:13 AM
In any case, you cannot infer the shape of the world from a map.
Well you can definitely infer that the shape is not flat because when cartographers made measurements of distances between distant points and tried to lay them out on a flat sheet of paper, they couldn't.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 13, 2021, 12:11:34 PM
@unconvinced

Sorry for the late response! Good things take time; hopefully that is your experience as well.

Quote
Mass is the intrinsic property, itís a scalar quantity (ie has no direction).  Weight is the force on a mass due to gravity (the Newtonian version).  Forces are vector quantities and consist of both magnitude and direction.  Thatís whatís missing from Flat Earther attempts to somehow just ignore gravity.  Youíre missing a reason for down to be down.  At least the UA proponents understand that much.

This is a common misconception.  There is no "reason" supplied in any available conception.  It simply is - it is natural law, and that is how and what natural law is.  We accept it because we must, and nature provides no clear reason for anything.  What is the reason for matter, or spatial dimension, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics? We may never have satisfying answers to any of those questions (that is NOT to say we shouldn't try!), but we survive and science progresses anyhow.

Quote
Scientism is just a silly word used by people who want to arbitrarily dismiss any scientific findings they donít like or donít understand.

No, though it may be misused this way.  People use words incorrectly all the time, and it is more difficult with informal words like this because personal definitions can vary wildly.  Honestly, I am not sure who coined the term or what their particular definition was - I'll check into that and get back to you.

Scientism is the worship of science.  The veneration and idolization of a mundane technical process and its practitioners/acolytes/spokesmen. 

It manifests itself in many harmful ways, one of which is the national coercion/"peer pressure" to subject yourself to a bleeding edge experimental vaccine which well may not be effective and has serious permanent (death and worse) side effects for an unknown percentage of the participants of this mass vaccine trial (the likes of which the world has never seen and no sane doctor in history would ever support - even facing something truly horrible and scary - such as ebola for instance).

All for the worship of "science" and the trust in those that peddle it for personal profit.

Quote
And Newton proposed a few simple equations that near perfectly describe and explain the motions of all objects observed in the solar system, at the same time as explaining why things fall down in earth.  Two things Flat Earthers are unable to explain hundreds of years later. 

Again, you misunderstand.  The equations were created to describe, mathematically, the heavens.  It is not a coincidence, or somehow prophetic/significant as you are misrepresenting, that it is what it was intended to be.  You can mathematically describe the lights in the sky in many ways.  Newtons is one of many - and turned out to be wrong in many significant ways.

Quote
That on Earth, there is a downward force acting on all mass is absolutely fundamental to mechanical and structural engineering. 

It is laughable that you think this, but it is a commonly taught and held view.  It stupidly suggests that before the late 1700's (early 18's at least, in truth), people couldn't build anything mechanically and structurally complex/large/difficult.  Weight is what is acting on the structure, weight from the structure above it.  Ancient men were not fools, and had no need for fictional "gravitational fields" anymore than we do today.

Quote
So our technology is designed and built accounting for gravity.

Completely incorrect.  Nothing is.  Perhaps you could provide an example and your reasoning?  In the case of a mechanical accelerometer or scale - you may argue this (disingenuously/hollowly), but scales measure weight (even when they are very small and measure the weight in a novel way, like some mechanical accelerometers).

Quote
If you want to be objective and scientific, maybe you should learn about the concepts you claim can be disposed of?

Why do you presume that I haven't? Most all people are required to learn about these concepts in some depth (with truancy officers, one might say - at gunpoint), do you think it is ONLY possible to consider alternatives if you haven't learned the mainstream/consensus view (because of how OBVIOUSLY right consensus views undeniably always are?)
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 13, 2021, 12:21:56 PM
Quote
If you want to be objective and scientific, maybe you should learn about the concepts you claim can be disposed of?

Why do you presume that I haven't?

Your entire post history? ;D

Most all people are required to learn about these concepts in some depth (with truancy officers, one might say - at gunpoint), do you think it is ONLY possible to consider alternatives if you haven't learned the mainstream/consensus view (because of how OBVIOUSLY right consensus views undeniably always are?)

If you tell me 1+1=3 and you indeed learned the mainstream/consensus view at gunpoint (how dramatic!), but have an 'alternative' view... all you're proving is that you do not in fact understand math.

If you think the Earth is flat and science is all wrong and gravity is actually 'gravitation' then the only conclusion is that no you have not learned and understood these concepts.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 13, 2021, 01:15:30 PM
Quote
Mass is the intrinsic property, itís a scalar quantity (ie has no direction).  Weight is the force on a mass due to gravity (the Newtonian version).  Forces are vector quantities and consist of both magnitude and direction.  Thatís whatís missing from Flat Earther attempts to somehow just ignore gravity.  Youíre missing a reason for down to be down.  At least the UA proponents understand that much.
This is a common misconception.
No, it is a fact due to the different ways mass manifests.
It is not simply a force to move the object down, i.e. weight.
Instead it is a resistance to motion.
And as pointed out already, the fact that resistance remains the same while weight varies shows it is not simply a manifestation of weight.

There is no "reason" supplied in any available conception.  It simply is - it is natural law, and that is how and what natural law is.  We accept it because we must, and nature provides no clear reason for anything.
No, it's not. This is because the rate of acceleration varies across Earth, even in a vacuum.

If it was a natural law, it would be the same everywhere.

Nature also provides a clear reason, or at least part of it, Earth is down.
We can also see this with other planets with moons, where we can observe the moons orbit the planets.


We may never have satisfying answers to any of those questions (that is NOT to say we shouldn't try!)
And we have tried with things falling and come up with a much better reason than "just because" which also matches other observations.

It manifests itself in many harmful ways, one of which is the national coercion/"peer pressure" to subject yourself to a bleeding edge experimental vaccine which well may not be effective and has serious permanent (death and worse) side effects for an unknown percentage of the participants of this mass vaccine trial (the likes of which the world has never seen and no sane doctor in history would ever support - even facing something truly horrible and scary - such as ebola for instance).
Except it has had trials which show it is effective. It's likely danger is minimal, much less than getting the virus.
And for an example from history, how about the smallpox vaccine, which was initial infecting people with cowpox?
It comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, which includes the risk of what happens with and without the vaccine, both to people and the economy.

Doctors, who understand the risks of not using a vaccine, understandably want a vaccine, and understand that the risks it presents are far less than those of the virus.
This also includes how contagious the virus is and how it spreads.
Ebola is relatively benign in that aspect as it requires direct contact with bodily fluids. It is not airborne. People with Ebola are unlikely to just casually transmit it to other people.
SARS-CoV-2 is much more transmissible as it is airborne. You can merely walk past someone who has it (who hasn't even started displaying symptoms yet), and have them breathe and you can catch it.

So a vaccine for Ebola is not a big concern as it is relatively easy to manage its transmission. But it is quite difficult to manage the transmission of SARS-CoV-2

My big concern is how effective the vaccines are against new strains.

Again, you misunderstand.  The equations were created to describe, mathematically, the heavens.
From what I have read, they were created to explain the motion, not merely describe the motion.
We already had Kepler's laws to describe the motion.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation could then be used to derive Kepler's laws.

turned out to be wrong in many significant ways.
Other than it being an approximation for the low energy limit (including how it ignores the influence of energy such as light), in what ways was it wrong?

but scales measure weight (even when they are very small and measure the weight in a novel way, like some mechanical accelerometers).
Accelerometers measure acceleration, due to the resistance of motion of a mass. They are not measuring weight due to the simple fact that it works in all directions.
The "weight" they do measure is due to an equivalence, at the local level, with gravitational attraction and acceleration.

Quote
If you want to be objective and scientific, maybe you should learn about the concepts you claim can be disposed of?
Why do you presume that I haven't? Most all people are required to learn about these concepts in some depth (with truancy officers, one might say - at gunpoint), do you think it is ONLY possible to consider alternatives if you haven't learned the mainstream/consensus view (because of how OBVIOUSLY right consensus views undeniably always are?)
You can consider alternatives all the time. But that isn't what you are doing. You are not merely considering the alternatives. Instead you are outright declaring these mainstream concepts to be false beyond any doubt, with no rational justification at all.

And your claims further show this, with how you want to pretend gravity and gravitation and fundamentally different things, how you claim that gravity in its entirety can be replaced with acceleration, and all the evidence for gravity is thus evidence for UA; how you claim that gravity is entirely unsupported; how you claim that a map would be useless in determining the shape of Earth; how you claim an object at the centre of a planet is a paradox for gravity and act like no one knows what should happen to it; how you claim the only way to determine the shape of Earth is direct measurement of it; how you repeatedly claim weight is an intrinsic property and mass is fictional; and so on.

I could go on for some time with various things you have said which are completely false and show you either do not understand what you are talking about, or are knowing spouting fiction.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 15, 2021, 02:05:03 PM
@jackblack

"You would still need an actual reason."

No, we would still WANT to understand a reason, there is a difference.

"Is there anything holding them down?"
 
Yes, the weight above them and that they are comprised of.

"You need an explanation for the directionality."

We want an explanation, not need.  Life and science continue to go on without such explanations currently.  Most natural laws do not have explanation.  They are effectively scientific bedrock.

"We clearly have examples of expending energy to move an object, yet it doesn't cause it to go back the other way."

Yes, no one is saying things always "go back the other way" when you put them in disequilibrium.

"Why does lifting an object take energy"

Because matter is heavy!  This is because matter has weight, which is an inexorable and intrinsic property that all known matter has.

"Just what is this energy in your "weight makes things go down"?"

The energy for falling comes directly from lifting, in accordance with the conservation of energy.

Belief is something you think is true, but cannot prove or demonstrate.

Knowledge is something you think is true, but can prove or demonstrate.

"What you are thinking of is faith."

Faith is when you are conditioned to believe that blind/unvalidated belief is a fine substitute for knowledge.  It isn't, regardless of context (classroom, church etc.)

"How wasn't he [newton, a scientist]?"

You mean OTHER than introducing the mathematical personification of the judeo-christian god into physics equation?  He was a scholar, not a scientist - though he did dabble in science.

"So whose [idea for gravity] was it?"

Epicurus.

"So what was the whole F=GMm/r^2 thing? That sure seems to be a hypothesis."

It is a mathematical relationship created long after newton's death.  It is also not a hypothesis - that has a definition.

"The 2 are not simply equivalent in the sense of you can just reject gravity and replace it entirely with UA."

Of course they are.  That's what convention reversals are - typically a simple change of sign (positive/negative) and nothing else.  The science and mathematics work identically.

"UA postulates that Earth accelerates upwards instead of gravity pulling us down. But with a round Earth this would be Earth accelerates outwards. This would mean that it would grow over time, drastically increasing its size and isolating parts of Earth from other parts in short order."

This is only one possible interpretation/rationalization, though I get your point.  One could do as the priests of astronomy/astrophysics do and simply claim that all of reality is doing this "expansion"/"acceleration" and there is no way to test this completely real thing that is definitely happening (trust me, wink wink ;)

"It would also mean that a satellite wouldn't maintain an orbit."

Let's leave those out for the time being, unless you insist.  They are an exception, not the rule.  Once again, if all of space expands...

"Likewise it in no way addresses cavendish."

Cavendish is another kettle of fish, but well worth studying / discussing.  For a die hard UA, you might simply accept/rationalize/interpret that the apparent attraction is in fact caused by real repulsion (or is an unrelated phenomenon) - just like gravity appears to be a force pulling down.

"You cannot simply reject gravity and replace it with UA, it simply doesn't work."

Of course it does, it is mostly a simple sign change.

"This raises serious questions for how all that is achieved and makes UA extremely complicated."

I mostly agree. This is a failure/valid criticism of the current presumptive model as well.  It's all far too complicated to calculate (three body problem), and the universe couldn't calculate it any better than we could.  It is intractable, which is a strong indicator for illogical garbage having no reality.

"And they can all be ruled out."

I am not convinced, though steps can be taken to limit them - I agree.  One of the troubles here is the infinitesimal effect.  It is SO minuscule, many minor factors (which cannot be eliminated satisfactorily, as you suggest) could be the cause.  Experimentally, this has never been established as gravitation is unscientific fiction with no reality.  It cannot be measured or manipulated, so it cannot be shown to be real in any way.  It is not even defined rigorously enough to begin to do so, if one were so inclined.

"If Earth was flat, we would have a vastly different time setup."

There is no reason to think this.

If the earth is flat, then everything we experience/build/use occurs on a flat earth.  This tautology is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 15, 2021, 03:41:26 PM
No, we would still WANT to understand a reason, there is a difference.
Semantics. The point is the "reason" you provided doesn't work.
But again, as it varies across Earth, there must be something causing it to vary, and thus there should be a reason. Likewise, there is a specific directionality which needs some reason.

Quote
Yes, the weight above them and that they are comprised of.
This is entirely circular. That weight is the very thing you are mean to be explaining.
You can't appeal to its weight to explain its weight.

Quote
"You need an explanation for the directionality."
We want an explanation, not need.  Life and science continue to go on without such explanations currently.  Most natural laws do not have explanation.
No, it doesn't.
Science operates under the assumption that the universe is isotropic, that three is no preferred direction.
Anytime something has a directionality, there is an explanation for it.
Things don't just fall down. They fall towards Earth (or towards whatever massive object that is nearby). Light bends due to a change in the refractive index of the mediums that it passes through.
Electrons are attracted towards positive charges.

In each case, there is a justification for the directionality.

And again, the natural laws you appeal to are the fundamental forces, which have a mathematical relation, and a clear directionality.

What you are proposing is nothing like that.

Quote
Yes, no one is saying things always "go back the other way" when you put them in disequilibrium.
That was a justification you provided for why things fall.
So you are arguing against yourself here.

Quote
"Why does lifting an object take energy"
Because matter is heavy!  This is because matter has weight
Circular reasoning yet again.

Quote
Belief is something you think is true, but cannot prove or demonstrate.
No, Belief is something you think is true. It doesn't matter if you can prove or demonstrate it.
Knowledge is justified, true belief.
You must believe something in order to know it.

Quote
Faith is when you are conditioned to believe
No, Faith is believing something without evidence.

Quote
You mean OTHER than introducing the mathematical personification of the judeo-christian god into physics equation?
And just why you do think it had anything to do with any god?
And was this also his laws of motion? Or just gravity?


Quote
Epicurus.
This seems to be the old idea of just things fall down. Nothing like what Newton had.

Quote
"F=GMm/r^2"
It is a mathematical relationship created long after newton's death. It is also not a hypothesis - that has a definition.
It is a key part of a hypothesis, and in context clearly is one. Gravity is a force which is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared.
A very clear hypothesis.
And we can see the various parts in Principia Mathematica, a work BY NEWTON.
It may not be stated exactly as "F=GMm/r^2", but it is clearly there:
"reciprocally as the squares of the distances of the places of those planets from that centre."
"reciprocally as the square of the distance of places from the centre of the planet"
And the like repeated in several locations, clearly showing the 1/r^2 relationship.

"are proportional to the quantities of matter which they severally contain."
"that the gravity tending towards all the planets is proportional to the matter which they contain."
Showing the dependence on mass (which he called quantities of matter).

It sure seems like everything needed for F=GMm/r^2 is in there, with clear hypotheses which could be tested (at least hypothetically, you would need sufficient experimental accuracy to be able to).

Quote
"The 2 are not simply equivalent in the sense of you can just reject gravity and replace it entirely with UA."
Of course they are.
No, they aren't.
I have clearly explained why. This is why people say you have no idea what you are talking about.
How about instead of repeatedly asserting the same nonsense, you actually address the refutation of that nonsense?

Like I said before, they are only equivalent for a LOCAL reference frame.
This is a frame where g does not vary.
i.e. for a tiny portion of Earth's surface, where g is directly effectively parallel down with a magnitude of 9.8 m/s^2, they are equivalent.
But for Earth in its entirety, where the magnitude and directionality of g varies, THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!

This is because if you take the entire reference frame and accelerate it to try to eliminate g in one location, you just make it worse for other locations.
For example, if the "top" and "bottom" both have a magnitude of 9.8 m/s^2, and the top has it pointing down while the bottom has it pointing up, so signed you have -9.8 m/s^2 and 9.8 m/s^2.

If you now try to use acceleration to make it equivalent, by accelerating the entire reference frame up, then at the top you are fine, and now viewing from the outside g=0. But for the bottom you now have g=19.6 m/s^2.

So no, the 2 are not equivalent.

Quote
claim that all of reality is doing this "expansion"/"acceleration"
Which would first mean you aren't simply replacing gravity with UA, and instead need to throw in more. And more importantly, if it is the expansion of space, we would still be able to measure an increase in size of Earth, and it wouldn't cause an apparent acceleration down towards Earth. If anything, the expansion of space would make us appear to accelerate away from Earth, as the space between us and Earth expands.

What you actually need is for the space around Earth to be contracting, at which point you basically have GR, not UA.

Either way, it means UA is not just a drop in replacement for gravity and thus the evidence for gravity is not evidence for UA.

Quote
"It would also mean that a satellite wouldn't maintain an orbit."
Let's leave those out for the time being, unless you insist.
No, lets not.
They are a key part of why UA is NOT EQUIVALENT to gravity.

Quote
you might simply accept/rationalize/interpret that the apparent attraction is in fact caused by real repulsion
And regardless of if that works or not, you still need something extra. Not simply UA.

Quote
Of course it does, it is mostly a simple sign change.
Again, I have clearly demonstrated that is not the case.

Quote
This is a failure/valid criticism of the current presumptive model as well.
No it isn't.
The current model has an explanation for why g varies.
There is variation in the density of Earth causing small local variations, there is the rotation of Earth which causes it to be oblate and cause larger variations, and there are tidal effects which also cause minor variations.

This is nothing like UA which has no real explanation at all for so many points.


Quote
It's all far too complicated to calculate (three body problem)
The 3 body problem is merely the fact that in general 3 bodies attracting each other via a simple inverse square law do not have a simple solution.
For 2 bodies there is the simple solution of them orbiting their common barycentre in ellipses.
It isn't too complicated to calculate. It is just no simple solution.

Quote
the universe couldn't calculate it any better than we could
Why not?
The universe seems to be quite good at integrating, even with complex equations with no simple solution.

Quote
It is intractable, which is a strong indicator for illogical garbage having no reality.
The only illogical garbage here is your dismissal of gravity with complete misrepresentation of it.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 15, 2021, 03:47:39 PM
Experimentally, this has never been established as gravitation is unscientific fiction with no reality.  It cannot be measured or manipulated, so it cannot be shown to be real in any way.  It is not even defined rigorously enough to begin to do so, if one were so inclined.

You keep using this word 'gravitation' but have yet to explain or define it.

What exactly is the source for this 'gravitation' term of yours?   

Gravity is very well defined, explained and we can predict and work with it to an extremely precise degree. Well enough to send spacecraft to the far reaches of the solar system and predict the orbits of planets, asteroids and comets. I'm unaware of any theory of 'gravitation' that can do the same.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 15, 2021, 04:03:12 PM
Also note that the 3 body problem applies to ALL forces of nature, not just gravity.
For example, while we can perfectly solve the Schrodinger equation for a simple hydrogen atom with a single proton and a single electron, we can't get a simple solution for anything else.
We can get a very good approximation if we only have 1 electron, regardless of what is in the nucleolus, but throw in a single second electron and all that goes out the window.

So do you discard all forces, or is it just gravity you hate so much due to its connection to the shape of Earth.


Quote
One of the troubles here is the infinitesimal effect.
It isn't infinitesimal.
We are talking about a variation in g of ~0.05 m/s^2. This is quite large compared to what we can measure. It is also quite significant.
After a day (86400 seconds) this variation would cause a variation in distance of ~187 Mm.

So this is a massive variation which would tear Earth apart in less than a day.

Buoyancy is insignificant, especially when you use a vacuum.
Remember, the buoyant force on an object is given by F=-g*rho(f)*v.
Meanwhile, the force due to gravity is given by F=g*rho(o)*v
So the total force is F=g*rho(f)*v-g*rho(o)*v = g*v*(rho(o)-rho(f)).
And the acceleration (what is actually measured) given by a=F/(rho(o)*v)
This means a=g*v*(rho(o)-rho(f))/F/(rho(o)*v)
=g*(rho(o)-rho(f))/rho(o).

And without the buoyant force we instead have a=g = g*rho(o)/rho(o)
This means the difference is:
Deltaa = g*rho(o)/rho(o) - g*(rho(o)-rho(f))/rho(o). = g*rho(f)/rho(o)

So even if you were using air, instead of a vacuum, with a density of roughly 1.2 kg/m^3, with a steel ball with a density of roughly 8000 kg/m^3, you are looking at a difference of 0.00147 m/s^2. Quite a lot smaller than the observed variation of 0.05 m/s^2.
But more importantly, that would be a difference between a perfect vacuum and air.
In order for this to explain the observed variations across Earth, you are looking for variations in that difference.
So what you actually need is a difference in density to give a difference.
And with that variation of 0.05 m/s^2, that would be a variation in density of roughly 40 kg/m^3, for steel. This would also vary with the material used.
If instead you used water, you only need a variation in density of 5 kg/m^3.

Meanwhile, if you use a vacuum at a very low pressure, say 1 mbar, then you cut that difference by a factor of 1 thousand, and there is no hope of having that explain it.

The error due to difference in the buoyant force is miniscule and has no chance of explaining the variation in g across Earth.

Seismic activity has a completely different reason.
This activity is not continuously up nor down. If it was, it would tear Earth apart.
Instead it varies. If this was the cause, then at times you would get larger values of g and at times you would get smaller.

So no, it doesn't explain it either.

Also note that unless you have a reason for these causes to vary systematically across Earth, you would expect it to fluctuate, such that some times the poles would appear to have stronger gravity and sometimes weaker gravity.

So how about instead of just asserting it can be explained, you actually try to.

Because we know that the air pressure isn't going to be an issue due to units sealed in a vacuum. We know it isn't seismic activity as that would tear Earth apart. There are also non-magnetic versions and versions which are shielded from magnetism. There is even temperature compensation or control.  They also have tilt sensors and that can be corrected for by levelling the instrument, or just by taking multiple measurements to correct for tilt.

Quote
Experimentally, this has never been established as gravitation is unscientific fiction with no reality.  It cannot be measured or manipulated, so it cannot be shown to be real in any way.  It is not even defined rigorously enough to begin to do so, if one were so inclined.
Youi discarding it and all the evidence in no way impacts reality.
It has been established quite conclusively, with plenty of evidence to support it.
It has been shown to be real beyond any sane doubt.
Just like mass, which you also dismiss.

Again, the fact that weight varies, while mass doesn't, shows weight is not the intrinsic property, mass is.

Quote
"If Earth was flat, we would have a vastly different time setup."
If the earth is flat
Notice the difference between what I said and what you said?
I said if Earth WAS flat, because we know it isn't.
You said if Earth IS flat.
You start with the baseless assumption that Earth is flat, and use it to conclude that whatever is seen is what you would expect on a flat Earth, to dismiss the things which show Earth isn't flat.

We grasp this circular reasoning quite easily, we just discard it as illogical garbage.
Instead, we accept that what is observed in reality is inconsistent with a flat Earth and use that to discard the idea of a flat Earth as not matching reality.

The fact that Earth is not flat makes your tautology unsound.

One such example is how time works, especially with sunrise and sun set.
The observation of sunrise and sunset shows that the sun would go below a flat Earth, just like in the ancient FE models which have more in common with todays RE model than todays horribly flawed FE models.
What this means is that the sun would rise for pretty much the entire Earth at once and set at once.
And the fact that it's apparent size does not vary throughout the day nor with location on Earth shows it must be quite far away from Earth, many times the size of Earth.
This means it would appear in roughly the same location for everyone on Earth.
This means there would be a single time zone for all of Earth.

Meanwhile, with a RE, only roughly half would be illuminated by the sun at any time, giving rise to time zones.
And the inclination of Earth w.r.t. its orbit means that the half which is illuminated will appear to rock back and forth, causing the time of sunrise and sunset to vary throughout the year, causing people to invent DST.

Now, some FEers try to get out of that by appealing to a spotlight sun, but that doesn't explain the observed patterns of illumination and darkness. For example, with the common NP centred map, and a simple spotlight sun, you cannot illuminate half the equator, without having also illuminating the north pole. That would mean the north pole would be perpetually in daylight never having any night.
It also fails to explain sunrise and sunset.
And during the equinox, you need a semi-circle for the spotlight pattern.
It also has no chance of explaining why the further south you go during the southern summer you have more hours of daylight, and the sun appears to rise from south of east.

You need so much extra convoluted BS to make it work (and this convoluted BS goes directly against other claimed evidence for a FE), when a RE explains it so simply.

So because Earth IS round, we have the time setup that we do.
If earth WAS flat, the time setup would be vastly different and much easier.

For such an example, consider the Minecraft overworld. The entire world has day at the same time, and night at the same time. The sun and moon have identical positions regardless of where in the world you are. That is the kind of time setup we could enjoy if Earth WAS flat.

And I see that there are still lots of points you haven't addressed, but I will give you time to do so.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 18, 2021, 05:23:08 AM
@jackblack

"You would still need an actual reason."

No, we would still WANT to understand a reason, there is a difference.

"Is there anything holding them down?"
 
Yes, the weight above them and that they are comprised of.

"You need an explanation for the directionality."

We want an explanation, not need.  Life and science continue to go on without such explanations currently.  Most natural laws do not have explanation.  They are effectively scientific bedrock.

"We clearly have examples of expending energy to move an object, yet it doesn't cause it to go back the other way."

Yes, no one is saying things always "go back the other way" when you put them in disequilibrium.

"Why does lifting an object take energy"

Because matter is heavy!  This is because matter has weight, which is an inexorable and intrinsic property that all known matter has.

"Just what is this energy in your "weight makes things go down"?"

The energy for falling comes directly from lifting, in accordance with the conservation of energy.

Belief is something you think is true, but cannot prove or demonstrate.

Knowledge is something you think is true, but can prove or demonstrate.

"What you are thinking of is faith."

Faith is when you are conditioned to believe that blind/unvalidated belief is a fine substitute for knowledge.  It isn't, regardless of context (classroom, church etc.)

"How wasn't he [newton, a scientist]?"

You mean OTHER than introducing the mathematical personification of the judeo-christian god into physics equation?  He was a scholar, not a scientist - though he did dabble in science.

"So whose [idea for gravity] was it?"

Epicurus.

"So what was the whole F=GMm/r^2 thing? That sure seems to be a hypothesis."

It is a mathematical relationship created long after newton's death.  It is also not a hypothesis - that has a definition.

"The 2 are not simply equivalent in the sense of you can just reject gravity and replace it entirely with UA."

Of course they are.  That's what convention reversals are - typically a simple change of sign (positive/negative) and nothing else.  The science and mathematics work identically.

"UA postulates that Earth accelerates upwards instead of gravity pulling us down. But with a round Earth this would be Earth accelerates outwards. This would mean that it would grow over time, drastically increasing its size and isolating parts of Earth from other parts in short order."

This is only one possible interpretation/rationalization, though I get your point.  One could do as the priests of astronomy/astrophysics do and simply claim that all of reality is doing this "expansion"/"acceleration" and there is no way to test this completely real thing that is definitely happening (trust me, wink wink ;)

"It would also mean that a satellite wouldn't maintain an orbit."

Let's leave those out for the time being, unless you insist.  They are an exception, not the rule.  Once again, if all of space expands...

"Likewise it in no way addresses cavendish."

Cavendish is another kettle of fish, but well worth studying / discussing.  For a die hard UA, you might simply accept/rationalize/interpret that the apparent attraction is in fact caused by real repulsion (or is an unrelated phenomenon) - just like gravity appears to be a force pulling down.

"You cannot simply reject gravity and replace it with UA, it simply doesn't work."

Of course it does, it is mostly a simple sign change.

"This raises serious questions for how all that is achieved and makes UA extremely complicated."

I mostly agree. This is a failure/valid criticism of the current presumptive model as well.  It's all far too complicated to calculate (three body problem), and the universe couldn't calculate it any better than we could.  It is intractable, which is a strong indicator for illogical garbage having no reality.

"And they can all be ruled out."

I am not convinced, though steps can be taken to limit them - I agree.  One of the troubles here is the infinitesimal effect.  It is SO minuscule, many minor factors (which cannot be eliminated satisfactorily, as you suggest) could be the cause.  Experimentally, this has never been established as gravitation is unscientific fiction with no reality.  It cannot be measured or manipulated, so it cannot be shown to be real in any way.  It is not even defined rigorously enough to begin to do so, if one were so inclined.

"If Earth was flat, we would have a vastly different time setup."

There is no reason to think this.

If the earth is flat, then everything we experience/build/use occurs on a flat earth.  This tautology is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.

That is most defiantly not the case.

The arguments you use are very narrow forgetting about how interconnected everything is. Take away the spherical shape of the earth then you have to invent a totally new physics regarding not only planetary formation but providing explanations as to how a flat earth would produce a magnetic field and why gravity is not constant across the surface of the earth but is variable dependant on altitude and location. Lets not forget plate tectonics, subduction, the shifting continents molten interior etc etc..... You would also have to provide explanations to the very existence and variability of the earth magnetic field, producing new laws for electro dynamics along the way, and explain how seismic research, sending sound waves through the planet all point to its inner structure being spherical. I don't see how the earth as we know and experience it could be flat.
How would you explain the difference between the lack of any other flat structure in the solar system, what forces would produce seven spherical planets along with hundreds of spherical moons and one flat planet! Why were the laws of physics out to lunch when the earth formed? Mars is good example of what happens when a planetary body looses most of its magnetic field, the solar wind strips away any atmosphere and any water boils off into space. According to what we know about magnetic field generation a flat stationary earth would simply not be capable of producing a magnetic field. Take away our magnetic field and all life on earth would be no more.

How do you explain the formation of a flat planet that is capable of generating a magnetic field? What are the mechanisms you are suggesting that are currently unknown to science?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 18, 2021, 11:31:24 AM
@jja

Quote
Everyone who has been up there has seen it with their own eyes

So we are told on tv, yes.  Forget the fact that those liars can't even keep what they "saw" straight or consistent in any way.  Can you see stars in space? Even (perhaps especially) those that claim to have been can't seem to get their answer straight - for no less than half a century...

Quote
But not you.

Not US, brother or sister - not us.

Quote
So I'm sure you also dispute the existence of ... the Nile

No, that would just be de-nile. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

I mostly side with sagan on this one.  Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence, mundane ones can typically be satisfied with commensurately mundane ones.

There is (almost) no more outrageous claim being made in earnest than "I have broken the surly bonds of earth, and touched the face of god".

Quote
If you throw out every fact that you have not personally verified with your own eyes... then you live in a very tiny world where you know almost nothing.

Only if you live a lousy, boring, experience-less "virtual" life.  In any case, it is our personal responsibility to verify facts (a subjective and varied personal process) as true before accepting them.  Sadly we were not taught to do this in school (merely to believe, and to repeat), and come to websites like this to build those skills.

Quote
And if you don't know anything, you certainly aren't an authority on the shape of world which remains a mystery to you.

I don't know what the true shape of the world is, but I know LOTS of things!

Quote
You choosing to not believe any facts related to the Earth being round isn't proof of anything but your own opinion.

Belief is not welcome in this subject (and most others).  Facts are merely what your "authority" arbitrarily tells you are facts - though you have hit the nail on the head in that many/most of them require belief.  This requisite belief is unacceptable, and across purposes to knowledge and education.

A fact is either demonstrably correct/true/consistent with reality or it isn't.  Belief in a fact, one way (positive) or another (negative) is unwelcome and across purposes.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 18, 2021, 12:12:19 PM
@jja

Quote
Everyone who has been up there has seen it with their own eyes

So we are told on tv, yes.  Forget the fact that those liars can't even keep what they "saw" straight or consistent in any way.  Can you see stars in space? Even (perhaps especially) those that claim to have been can't seem to get their answer straight - for no less than half a century...

So you think that every one of the over 400 people who say they have been to space are liars along with NASA and the government and a dozen other space agencies. All liars because you don't understand how human vision works. Or stars. Right.

I went over this worn out hoaxer trope on the other site, which never got a response, so not bothering to do with you it again.

Quote
So I'm sure you also dispute the existence of ... the Nile

No, that would just be de-nile. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

I mostly side with sagan on this one.  Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence, mundane ones can typically be satisfied with commensurately mundane ones.

There is (almost) no more outrageous claim being made in earnest than "I have broken the surly bonds of earth, and touched the face of god".

I'd say the claim that the Earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary is farm more outrageous.  :P

So you are retreating back to the argument of incredulity. You just don't have the imagination to understand or believe we can go into space, therefore millions of people are perpetuating a massive hoax. All because it's beyond your ability to grasp the concept.

I see you also dodged my question. Do you believe in the Nile? Do you think it exists? Have you seen it with your own eyes?

Quote
If you throw out every fact that you have not personally verified with your own eyes... then you live in a very tiny world where you know almost nothing.

Only if you live a lousy, boring, experience-less "virtual" life.  In any case, it is our personal responsibility to verify facts (a subjective and varied personal process) as true before accepting them.  Sadly we were not taught to do this in school (merely to believe, and to repeat), and come to websites like this to build those skills.

So because I believe the Nile is real despite never having been there, I lead some kind of boring experience-less life?

My world extends beyond the four walls I can see, you seem to live in a dark, strange world where you can only understand what's right in front of you. How limited.

Quote
And if you don't know anything, you certainly aren't an authority on the shape of world which remains a mystery to you.

I don't know what the true shape of the world is, but I know LOTS of things!

I'm sure you know lots of things, all the best things, so many things. But only if you can lick them.

But being unable to figure out the shape of the planet you live on is pretty sad. How confusing the world must be, having no understanding of even the basic shape of it.

Luckily the rest of us are here to build your comfy home and computer for you to type on and teach us all the things you know. But wait... since we can't trust anything we don't see or touch, I guess everything you say is wrong.  Good to know there is nothing to learn from you.

Quote
You choosing to not believe any facts related to the Earth being round isn't proof of anything but your own opinion.

Belief is not welcome in this subject (and most others).  Facts are merely what your "authority" arbitrarily tells you are facts - though you have hit the nail on the head in that many/most of them require belief.  This requisite belief is unacceptable, and across purposes to knowledge and education.

A fact is either demonstrably correct/true/consistent with reality or it isn't.  Belief in a fact, one way (positive) or another (negative) is unwelcome and across purposes.

My authority is the combined knowledge, experience and records of the entire human race. There is no 'authority" telling me what to believe, no King of Science or Pope of Space that is controlling the world.

The Earth being round is consistent with reality. Sorry it rubs you the wrong way, or it just boggles your mind to the point it short circuits, but just because you can't grasp the sheer size and wonder of the world and universe we live in is your problem, not the universes.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 18, 2021, 12:54:16 PM
Forget the fact that those liars can't even keep what they "saw" straight or consistent in any way.
And there you go with more baseless assertions.
What makes you think they are liars? Because they don't agree with you?

Can you see stars in space?
The answer to that is quite similar to the question "Can you see stars on Earth?"
The answer is that it depends.
In some circumstances you can, in some you can't.
If you have a bright light in your face, you can't. If you are surrounded by darkness you can.

That doesn't make it inconsistent.

Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence, mundane ones can typically be satisfied with commensurately mundane ones.
Yes, so an outrageous claim that there is a massive global conspiracy dedicated to hiding the real shape of Earth, with no motivation at all, certainly needs a lot of evidence.
Likewise, all the nonsense required to try to make the FE work, in contrast to the far simpler RE model, requires lots of evidence.

There is (almost) no more outrageous claim being made in earnest than "I have broken the surly bonds of earth, and touched the face of god".
Yes, because gods are most certainly fiction. Now who made that claim?

Meanwhile, the mere claim that people have left Earth and gone into space is a fairly minor claim to anyone who actually understands the physics involved. It isn't special or outrageous. Not really any more so than people claiming they are getting into large metal objects which then leave the ground. (i.e. planes). (And for added fun, the poem you are likely misquoting from, was about planes flying, just very high for their time, at roughly 10 km above the surface, not about space).

And there is plenty of evidence for things in space, such as the satellites which can observed, either as points of light, in particular locations which are quite distinct if you know what you are looking for, and at least 1 which is resolvable.
Then there is further support for satellites with the data they send back, including the use of GPS and plenty of photos from space.
And of course, all the people witnessing the rocket launches, and videos showing the launch from ground to space.
And of course the witness testimony.

Quote
If you throw out every fact that you have not personally verified with your own eyes... then you live in a very tiny world where you know almost nothing.
Only if you live a lousy, boring, experience-less "virtual" life.
No, regardless of how you live.
There is so much you would need to do to verify so many facts, especially as some cannot be directly verified with the eyes. Compared to all that humanity knows, you would know virtually nothing, even if you spent your entire life trying to verify everything.

In any case, it is our personal responsibility to verify facts (a subjective and varied personal process) as true before accepting them.
No, not to conclusively verify them. That is only if your extremely paranoid.
Again, if you tried doing that, humanity would never progress.
Our knowledge is built upon the knowledge obtained by those who came before us.
Instead of each of us personally trying to verify everything, people choose specific things which interest them and work in that area to try to expand the knowledge of mankind.

Facts are merely what your "authority" arbitrarily tells you are facts
Like I said before, you ignoring all the evidence doesn't magically mean it isn't there.
There is plenty of evidence supporting these facts.

many/most of them require belief
Because knowledge is a subset of belief.
You can't know something if you don't believe it.
What they don't require is faith.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 20, 2021, 02:32:12 AM
@jackblack

Quote
Do you accept that regardless of what material an object is made out of, if it is large enough gravity will be strong enough to crush into a sphere, and it is only a question of what size it is?

I understand the posit, yes.  It is conceivable in theory, but a lot more evidence is required for any "acceptance" of it in reality.

Quote
And because of that, do you accept that trying to compare Earth to a small object like a phone, to try to say because the phone isn't spherical Earth doesn't have to be, is a completely meaningless comparison, and that instead you should be comparing it to much larger objects, like other planets, the moon and stars (including the sun).

You assume that those things are larger objects without adequate validation/verification.  You believe it, as most others do, purely because you were told it was true.

Quote
Do you accept that UA is only equivalent to gravity in a small local frame, and that you cannot simply replace gravity with UA and expect everything to work the same outside of a small local frame (e.g. you can't replace gravity with UA for cavendish)?

I do recognize some of the problems with it for greater cosmology (some of which you raised), yes.  However cosmology is just mythology (not science) - so no one cares if it has to change because it doesn't affect our lives (so they believe).

Quote
And because of that, do you accept that the entire body of evidence for gravity is not evidence for UA?

I hear what you are saying, but the posit of UA is a straight convention flip.  Downstream impacts to cosmology and other repercussions are worthy to evaluate, and evidence of paradox / incongruity with other theory/conception (which could easily be evidence that UA is wrong) but don't change the fact that convention/sign changes are completely mathematically/scientifically consistent as long as you are.  If every time +9.8m/s/s you treated as -9.8m/s/s, at the end of the day you only have a sign change.

Quote
Do you accept that your explanation of why things fall due to weight is entirely inadequate, that without something like gravitational potential energy it violates the conservation of energy, and that it isn't simply a case of nothing holding it up, nor is it a simple case of you applied energy to push one way so it moves back?

I recognize that you are accustomed to a particular framework, and will likely need to discuss and evaluate any alternative ones a bit more before an objective analysis will become possible.

Let's try to break this down a little.  We are comparing 2 ideas

1.  Matter has weight because it is attracted by a theoretical and mysterious invisible "force" that can't be measured and has an unknown composition and mechanism.
2.  Matter has weight because it is intrinsic to the matter itself - simply another intrinsic property like color and size.

Why do you think 1 is obviously correct/adequate, and 2 simply couldn't be?  One is much more easily defended than the other (hint: it's the one that does NOT invoke unmeasurable fiction under the guise of empirical science...)

Quote
And you can provide a distribution of mass to produce the observed gravitational acceleration, but with a flat Earth?

Sure, there are many configurations that are conceivable.  Gravity doesn't prove/force the world spherical.

Quote
Again, even ignoring the other evidence and focusing primarily on gravity, it is not a case of gravity exists, therefore everything is a sphere.

Right, that's exactly what I was saying in my "strawman".

Quote
You would need to appeal to magical material, never heard of, with magical properties to prevent it.

We don't know much about what materials might/could exist, but I agree - some theoretical configurations may involve materials that are stronger than the ones we know of - other configurations could undoubtedly be created without doing so.  When you are blindly guessing, you can expect to come up with a LOT of wrong answers.

Quote
If you don't want to trust the results yourself, you can go into space yourself.
But most people aren't that paranoid.

Actually, no - you (one) can't.  That's the point.  Space exists nowhere except on tv.

Quote
The simple fact is that going into space is the only way to see Earth entirely in your FOV in any meaningful way. And even low orbits are not entirely useful.

So we are told, yes.

Quote
Would you try to judge the shape of any normal object like that?
Or would you instead stand away from it quite some distance?

There is nothing wrong with trying to get further away to fit everything in frame.  We know why that doesn't work with the earth, and only nasa claims it CAN work.

Quote
Glad you agree your position is dumb.

My position is evidence (historical and scientific) based, and is not that the world is flat (I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is) but rather that it is not, and most likely cannot be, spherical.

Quote
He didn't ask what degree you have, or what scientific institution you work at.

No, they oh-so-subtly intimated that without those things (degrees, scientific institutions, laboratories) no evaluation of claims nor discussion was required.  It was a shitty rhetorical attempt to discard rather than address - wether done consciously or not.

Quote
No it isn't.

Of course it is.  Don't play dumb.  This is a website about how the earth may be/is another shape than the one currently assumed.  No, there are not published journal articles nor science grants to fund such things. Pretending like there ought to be and you "just can't understand where all the evidence is" is disingenuous (and credential worshipping sycophantry).

There is nothing wrong with trying to safeguard your time, as there are many who seek to waste it.  However, this is a forum specifically to discuss this topic.  Coming here to demand scientific journal articles and laboratory data is stupid and disingenuous.

Quote
So nothing to actually refute gravity or the fact that Earth is round?

What my research shows is that gravitation (not gravity) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever.  It has been a persistent thorn in the side of physics (and physicists) since its introduction.  My research also shows that the notion the earth is spherical is merely an unvalidated assumption more than 2 millennia old, presented disingenuously and erroneously to children as "scientific fact" for most all of that time.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2021, 03:04:43 AM
I understand the posit, yes.  It is conceivable in theory, but a lot more evidence is required for any "acceptance" of it in reality.
And just what extra validation is required.

You assume that those things are larger objects without adequate validation/verification.  You believe it, as most others do, purely because you were told it was true.
No, I know they are larger due to just how far away they need to be, combined with their angular size.
Even if you want to reject them being the distances they are in reality and instead want a FE model, they are still massive compared to any object on Earth, and thus the only things which would be even remote comparable to Earth.

However cosmology is just mythology (not science)
And there you go with denial of science again.
Just what makes you think it isn't science? The fact that it shows FE to be wrong?

I hear what you are saying, but the posit of UA is a straight convention flip.
Then you clearly aren't hearing what I am saying.
Like I have said many times, that is purely for "thing on Earth appear to fall towards Earth".
Not the entire body of evidence that supports gravity.

Downstream impacts to cosmology and other repercussions are worthy to evaluate
And clearly shows that it isn't just a straight convention flip.

If every time +9.8m/s/s you treated as -9.8m/s/s, at the end of the day you only have a sign change.
And that "only have a sign change" fails to match what is actually observed.
Like I said, the simple attraction to Earth shows that is not the case.

Let's try to break this down a little.  We are comparing 2 ideas
1.  Matter has weight because it is attracted by a theoretical and mysterious invisible "force" that can't be measured and has an unknown composition and mechanism.
2.  Matter has weight because it is intrinsic to the matter itself - simply another intrinsic property like color and size.
No, they are not the 2 ideas we are comparing.

As repeatedly explained your claims about option 1 are pure BS, and option 2 is not that simple.

What we are actually comparing:
1. Matter has weight because all matter is attracted to all other matter, through a "force" which is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely to the square of the distance between them (at least as a good approximation). This force has been measured repeatedly, both on Earth as things falling, and in other set ups such as the attraction between 2 small masses on Earth. The currently accepted mechanism is that matter bends spacetime such that motion through time is converted to motion through space. But like all fundamental forces, there are always more questions.

2. Matter has weight just because. It is not because it is an intrinsic property as shown by the fact that weight varies around Earth. This has no explanation for the directionality nor the magnitude of this force, nor why it is proportional to mass.

And no, colour and size are NOT intrinsic properties.
The colour of an object typically depends upon the electronic structure of the substance. The size depends upon the arrangement of atoms.

Why do you think 1 is obviously correct/adequate, and 2 simply couldn't be?  One is much more easily defended than the other
For exactly that reason, 1 is more easily defended than 2, at least when represented properly.
This is because 1 has mountains of evidence supporting it, actually makes sense, and provides an explanation for the directional and the variation in force.
2 on the other hand has no explanation at all and just asserts the useless tautology that things fall because they fall.

Quote
And you can provide a distribution of mass to produce the observed gravitational acceleration, but with a flat Earth?
Sure, there are many configurations that are conceivable.  Gravity doesn't prove/force the world spherical.
Providing it isn't just saying one exists, it is actually providing it.
So can you provide one, or can you just claim that such configurations exist?

Quote
Again, even ignoring the other evidence and focusing primarily on gravity, it is not a case of gravity exists, therefore everything is a sphere.
Right, that's exactly what I was saying in my "strawman".
And that is why it is a strawman.
You were not representing what people actually claim.
It is never simply a case of gravity exists thus Earth is round. There are other factors which when combined with gravity means Earth is round. For example, the size of Earth.

We don't know much about what materials might/could exist
No, we have a very good idea. This is based upon our understanding of chemistry, which tells us what kind of elements exist, and how they can arrange into different substances, with the strongest (at least in compressive loads) being those like diamond.

other configurations could undoubtedly be created without doing so
Yet you still can't provide any.

Actually, no - you (one) can't.  That's the point.  Space exists nowhere except on tv.
No, that's your baseless assertion.
An assertion refuted by plenty of evidence.

We know why that doesn't work with the earth
Why?
Because doing so shows it is clearly round and you don't like that?

My position is evidence (historical and scientific) based
No, it is based upon a wilful rejection of evidence, such as all the evidence for gravity you reject when you claim that it is not measurable, and all the evidence for Earth being roughly spherical that you reject when you claim Earth can't be a sphere.

rather that it is not, and most likely cannot be, spherical.
Yet all the available evidence shows that is wrong and you are yet to justify that outrageous claim of yours with anything.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2021, 03:06:29 AM
Quote
He didn't ask what degree you have, or what scientific institution you work at.
No, they oh-so-subtly intimated that without those things
No, they didn't.
They simply asked what equipment you had.
That is not credential worshipping.
That is merely pointing out that unless you tools you can't determine the shape of Earth and other similar things. And how good your tools are will determine how well you can determine the shape of Earth and other similar things.

Of course it is.  Don't play dumb.  This is a website about how the earth may be/is another shape than the one currently assumed.
No, the shape that it has been determine to be based upon plentiful evidence that you wish to ignore.
If there was actually evidence supporting this contrary idea and all your claims, it should be fine getting published.
The problem is that there is no evidence for it, so it can't get published.

The point is that the "research" you are doing is nothing like the scientific research that has been carried out and is being carried out regarding the shape of Earth and gravity.

What my research shows is that gravitation (not gravity) is unscientific fiction
As you have already admitted that your research is not scientific in any way and instead is trying to focus on history, it has no capability to do that.

If you had actually carried out proper research, even fairly simple stuff high schoolers manage to do, you would have evidence for gravity, or gravitation as you like to call it.

Your research is not scientific in any way and thus is incapable of determining that Earth is not round or that gravity isn't real.
It does nothing to negate the plentiful research and evidence supporting gravity and supporting the fact that Earth is round.

The best your "research" could do is show that you cannot find evidence to support it. That YOU haven't validated those facts. Not that no evidence/validation exists.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 20, 2021, 04:57:18 AM
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
Again, care to address the points I made? Or will you just ignore them as if your claims haven't been refuted?

I expect that by now you no longer feel this way, however - in case you still do - the best way to (possibly/potentially) get a specific answer is to ask a specific question.  I am definitely doing my utmost to address every point / question / thought, however oftentimes even this isn't enough.

Quote
Not primary scientific research.
That requires doing experiments to obtain data.

If only that were true :(. That is a significant part of the reason for this subject and this site!

The older I get, the more I too side with planck and newton. Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal; all else is poetry and imagination.

Quote
While that may have been the case for Newton, it is not now.

So we are taught.

Quote
There is plenty of experimental verification for gravity, and it is quite falsifiable (at the hypothetical level, i.e. being able to do an experiment and testing predictions from gravity, where if those predictions are false, then gravity is wrong).

There are no experimental verifications of GRAVITATION that exist or could possibly exist currently or historically (because the definition of gravitation is not rigorous enough to even begin to do so, if you wished to).  Again, newton knew that when he invoked it and when he explained that the mechanism was the judeo christian god.

Quote
And it is far more falsifiable than things just magically falling for no reason at all.

As I keep explaining, and you keep failing to grasp/appreciate, things do not fall for no reason.  They fall with and for the reasons described (and experimentally validatable) in archimedes principle.  The force of the weight is intrinsic to the matter and not imbued by an (fictional) external field.

Quote
Ignoring the mass-energy equivalence, mass is quite real as easily measured due to inertia.

Inertia is merely horizontal weight. Imagine an object you wish to weigh on a frictionless plane.  Taking a luggage scale and pulling until the object begins to move measures the weight - measured horizontally rather than vertically.  There is no magic to it, and because it is moving perpendicularly to the buoyant force, that greatly reduces an already minuscule source of error (for what i call "intrinsic weight" which is, roughly defined, an object's measured weight in a vacuum).

Quote
Likewise, the force, real or apparent, produced by gravity can cause an object to accelerate or can be measured as a force such as on a scale.

This is commonly taught, but wrong.  Scales only measure weight (with buoyancy - what I call "apparent" or "effective" weight).  Nothing can measure gravitation because it isn't even defined well enough to begin trying to measure.

Quote
You have no cause. You just claim things magically fall for no reason at all.

Of course I do.  It's weight, and more specifically - the relationship between the density of the object and the surrounding media.  As I said, it is all made very clear in archimedes principle.  What is magical is this invisible, unmanipuable, undefinable, weak but simultaneously omnipresent god of "gravitation", but again - newton understood all that.

Quote
Why should things just fall for no reason at all?

They fall in accordance and for the reasons described in archimedes' principle. Furthermore they fall as a result of being lifted, and with the exact same input energy used to lift them.  Things NEVER fall for no reason, or without energy input first.

Quote
So something even you call an experiment, you say is not an experiment.

I typically refer to it as the cavendish observation, but the misnomer is out there and it doesn't look to be going away any time soon.

Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition.  The cavendish apparatus is merely for making observations.  A mere observation is NEVER an experiment.

Quote
And the same could be said of all fundamental forces.

That's true, and to be sure they all hold mystery and are objectively magical - however gravitation is the clear exception - historically, scientifically, philosophically - you name it.  Today it is referred to as a force only colloquially, because a real physicist knows better than to classify something theoretical, unmeasured and unmeasurable with the rest of empirical science.

Gravitation is completely unfalsifiable.  In astronomy, it has been falsified through observational data for somewhere between decades and centuries - but they just keep plugging the holes with more fictional nonsense.  Black holes, supermassive black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, zeus and other evidence-less fiction is preferred to science - sadly.

Quote
Ultimately you will reach a point where we simply don't know

Exactly!  This is why your issues with "reason"/"cause" for the cardinal directions of up and down and for the origin and nature of weight are ultimately non-sequitur / easily dismissed.  Most natural laws, like gravity and density separation / entropy laws for instance, do not have further "cause" or "reason" that is obvious to us today.  They are, and we deal with them as we must.

Quote
Does that mean you likewise reject all of science and instead just appeal to the magic of "innate properties"?

There is nothing magical and certainly nothing unscientific about accepting and recognizing innate characteristics.  It is a fundamental posit of aristotle that has become one of the foundational pillars in western thought.

Quote
Or is it only gravity you look at with such distain?

Despite appearances, I love science and chiefly have such disdain for scientism/pseudoscience misrepresented under its guise because of that love.  There is LOTS of pseudoscience around, but to discern real science from the rest you need to know the proper definitions/criteria first!
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 20, 2021, 04:58:36 AM
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
They sure seem to be measuring them.
Could you explain why you think they cannot measure gravitational waves?

Sure!  My love of science and varied interest led me to an interest in interferometery.

I know a lot about interferometers, and I know both what they were designed to do and how they function.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they can or should be able to measure "gravitational waves" if such a thing can or does exist at all (there is ALSO no evidence that gravitational waves exist to find in the first order).  Gravitational waves and gravity waves are not the same thing, but that is the "hoax".  In the minds of the vast majority, "gravity was detected".

Interferometers measure motion, and I understand much better than most why and how they accomplish that.

Quote
You mean your history and language (or did you mean philosophy) research, which has absolutely no bearing on the shape of Earth and could not possibly indicate Earth cannot be spherical?

I mean the study of history and language showed that the spherical shape of the earth was nothing more than an unvalidated assumption misrepresented to gullible students for millennia.  The history of the science (and evaluation of that science) shows that the earth (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical, yes.

Quote
And again, stated with all the certainty of a religious zealot.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but if it is the comment you quoted then I really don't understand your response.  All I was saying was that, without mass "education" to the contrary, the world obviously appears flat.  One of the ways we know this is by asking small children what they think the shape of the world is before they have "learned any better".

Quote
Plenty of people actually understand the evidence and have obtained at least some of the evidence themselves.

I have found that very few people understand or objectively and critically evaluate the evidence - and that everyone benefits from engaging in that process.

Quote
Then you aren't very good at history.

Lol.  This subject is deceptively simple.  It seems so unassuming and innocuous, just like its apparently central question, "What is the true shape of the earth?".  A child could get that question answered in a few heartbeats, but when we adults try in earnest often for the first time in our natural lives - we realize it isn't quite so simple.

If you know the answer to the question, PLEASE provide your answer!  Again, the question is : "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?"

Quote
The Ancient Greeks new Earth was round. They were even capable of determining a way to measure the radius of Earth.

Yes.  They knew it was round because they were taught as children it was a fact - just like us today! They couldn't measure the world much better/differently than we can today, and what they came up with was a way to CALCULATE the radius IF the world were a sphere (which they took as a given, because they were erroneously taught it was a fact from childhood) and a half a dozen other unvalidated assumptions.

Quote
We likely wont know who first determined the world was roughly a sphere, nor exactly what their reasons for doing so were.

We won't, and we don't! That's why the question is sill open!

Quote
But we do know it was long before NASA.

No, we assume that and we should be chastised for doing so.  Nasa (around there anyhow, give or take a few decades) was the first time anyone had the capability (IF we believe everything we see on tv) to validate and confirm the shape of the earth in the history of humanity that I am aware of.

Quote
But thanks for showing you think RE is just a big NASA conspiracy.

You misunderstand.  NASA isn't faking RE - they are faking space, writ-large. They think the world is spherical, just like everyone else.  That's why they depict it that way in all the promotional propaganda they produce.  Of course, this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth - just a fun tangent.

Quote
It was an experiment. It tested a hypothesis and at the same time provided a measurement.

So we are mistaught.  No one, I repeat, no one involved with the cavendish observation EVER referred to it as an experiment.  That's because it isn't one, and it never was.

Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition.  MOST of the things that laypeople are taught are experiments (mr.wizard, bill nye and worse) are in no way experiments.  Most are simple observations.

An experiment is a procedure to validate or invalidate a hypothesis by establishing (ideally) a causal relationship between an IV/Independent Variable/hypothesized cause and a DV/Dependent Variable/hypothesized effect.

Quote
If this wasn't the case, they would not have been able to get a value of G out of the experiment, or it would be deemed to be below the experimental detection limit, with the latter potentially having serious implications for Earth and raising serious red flags for gravity.

There are those about that claim that that is precisely the case, and that the procedure is simply tweaked and repeated until values that seem to match expectation are found (or you are assumed to be incompetent / have screwed up the procedure somehow) Completely unfalsifiable....
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Stash on January 20, 2021, 05:59:52 AM
Quote
Why should things just fall for no reason at all?

They fall in accordance and for the reasons described in archimedes' principle. Furthermore they fall as a result of being lifted, and with the exact same input energy used to lift them.  Things NEVER fall for no reason, or without energy input first.

I'm not sure I follow this bit. If things simply fall because of the input energy used to lift them, why do two differently weighted objects fall at the same rate? Each would have a different input energy used to lift them, I'm assuming meaning they would have a different falling "energy" rate.

And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Platonius21 on January 20, 2021, 07:22:06 AM

Let's try to break this down a little.  We are comparing 2 ideas

1.  Matter has weight because it is attracted by a theoretical and mysterious invisible "force" that can't be measured and has an unknown composition and mechanism.
2.  Matter has weight because it is intrinsic to the matter itself - simply another intrinsic property like color and size.


Ha. You don't even get the issues stated correctly.  The amount of attraction HAS been quite accurately measured:
https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/sites/sand.npl.washington.edu.eotwash/files/documents/prl85-2869.pdf

And the "intrinsic" property of matter is its mass, not its weight.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2021, 12:38:15 PM
Quote
Not primary scientific research.
That requires doing experiments to obtain data.
If only that were true
That is true.
Primary scientific research requires doing experiments to obtain data.
You even seem to be in support of experiment being the only means of obtaining knowledge.

Quote
Quote
While that may have been the case for Newton, it is not now.
So we are taught.
And again, you just dismiss reality.
If you want to show that all that research is fake and couldn't possibly have measured gravity, go ahead.
But simple rejection is just denying reality.

Quote
There are no experimental verifications of GRAVITATION
Again, you ignoring it doesn't magically mean it isn't real.
Other than you, most people are fine equating gravity and gravitation, as the difference is pure semantics.
Gravity is gravitation.
There is plenty of experimental evidence for it. Again, you just denying it doesn't magically make it go away.

Quote
because the definition of gravitation is not rigorous enough to even begin to do so, if you wished to
HOW?
You have both it being a simple force with F=GMm/r^2, and a more complex curvature of spacetime.
You can easily make predictions based upon this and test those predictions.

Quote
Again, newton knew that when he invoked it and when he explained that the mechanism was the judeo christian god.
The only person I have ever seen claim that is you. Just where are you getting this from?

As for Newton, he merely thought that there were not instruments that were sensitive enough to measure it.

Quote
As I keep explaining, and you keep failing to grasp/appreciate, things do not fall for no reason.
You are yet to provide a reason. Instead you just claim they fall.
Even saying it is intrinsic to things is not providing a reason.

Quote
archimedes principle.
Does not provide a reason.
It does not provide a justification for the directionality, nor does it provide a justification for the speed.
It doesn't even say things fall.
Instead it just says that an object will displace its own weight in a fluid.

Something easily shown with gravity.

Quote
The force of the weight is intrinsic
The fact that it varies shows that it is not an intrinsic property.
And again, that is still not a reason. That is still just saying things fall because things fall.

Quote
Inertia is merely horizontal weight
No it isn't.
If it was horizontal weight then things would just fall horizontally, and it would require a constant force to hold it in place.

Inertia has no preferred direction.
It is merely resistance to motion.

It is fundamentally different to weight. One big difference is that the mass is the same, regardless of where you are, while weight varies.

Quote
Quote
Likewise, the force, real or apparent, produced by gravity can cause an object to accelerate or can be measured as a force such as on a scale.
This is commonly taught, but wrong.
You mean you dismiss it because you hate gravity.
Not for any actual justified reason, but just because you hate gravity and don't want to accept it.

Quote
Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition.
And care to provide this magical definition of yours you are using to dismiss all the evidence for gravity?
Because so far you are just dismissing with no justification.

As far as I can tell, the cavendish experiment was an experiment.

Quote
That's true, and to be sure they all hold mystery and are objectively magical - however gravitation is the clear exception
There are only 2 ways in which gravity is special.
1 is that it uses mass instead of charge or some other property.
The other is that likes attract.
Otherwise, it is the same in basically every manner to the other fundamental forces.
There is no explanation for exactly what causes all the necessary parts of the explanation, and even if you tried, all you would do is push the problem back.
There is plentiful experimental evidence justifying them and the law that the force obeys.

Quote
Today it is referred to as a force only colloquially
Because one of the best explanations, which actually explains why it uses mass instead of charge or something else, has it being an inertial force, due to the curvature of spacetime.
This makes it akin to the centrifugal force, which is a result of choosing a non-inertial reference frame.

This is due to the equivalence between an object at rest in a local (i.e. uniform) gravitational field, and that same object inside a container which is accelerating upwards.

In GR, the inertial reference frame is a tiny frame that is in free fall.

Quote
Gravitation is completely unfalsifiable.
It is quite falsifiable.
Mercury demonstrated that Newton's law is not perfect, but merely an approximation.

Quote
In astronomy, it has been falsified
No it hasn't, as the data is incomplete.
That is currently an open question in science.

All it is is a disagreement between 2 ways of trying to determine how much matter/energy is present.
Galactic rotation curves based upon gravity, and some other measurements based upon gravity, indicate that there is more matter present than observations base upon how much light is there and making assumptions about how much mass that light corresponds to.

The problem is that light is not intrinsically tied to how much matter is there. It is possible to have matter which is quite bright, and matter which is quite dark.

Quote
Exactly!  This is why your issues with "reason"/"cause" for the cardinal directions of up and down and for the origin and nature of weight are ultimately non-sequitur / easily dismissed.
No they aren't.
We have an explanation, supported by plenty of evidence, which can explain both the directionality and the variation in weight.

There is a very big difference between not knowing because we do not currently have any known means to find out, and wilfully rejecting an explanation supported by evidence because you don't like it.

You not liking the explanation doesn't mean there is none. You don't get to just discard it and expect people to follow along when you offer literally nothing in its place.

Quote
Most natural laws, like gravity and density separation / entropy laws for instance, do not have further "cause" or "reason" that is obvious to us today.
The fundamental forces don't, as do a few other ones, but most do.
For example, density separation is based upon gravity or another similar force. This can be observed to stop working in 0 g, and to work even better in a centrifuge.

Quote
Despite appearances, I love science
No you don't.
Your actions here clearly show a hatred for science, not a love for it.
You just try to label the science you hate as something else.

So the question is do you dismiss all of science, or just the parts you hate?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2021, 01:19:07 PM
I know a lot about interferometers, and I know both what they were designed to do and how they function.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they can or should be able to measure "gravitational waves" if such a thing can or does exist at all (there is ALSO no evidence that gravitational waves exist to find in the first order).  Gravitational waves and gravity waves are not the same thing, but that is the "hoax".  In the minds of the vast majority, "gravity was detected".
Do you have an actual explanation or just a dismissal of gravitation?
Also, do you understand how nonsensical that is?
You are basically saying until we have evidence of something existing, there is no reason to think it exists and thus nothing should detect it.
By that complete absense of reason, nothing exists.

Back in reality, we did have reason to think they exist, and LIGO was about detecting to prove they exist.

Quote
Interferometers measure motion
Interferometers can measure more than just motion.
If you understood the principles of how they work, you would understand what they can measure, and that includes gravitational waves.

I mean the study of history and language showed that the spherical shape of the earth was nothing more than an unvalidated assumption misrepresented to gullible students for millennia.
Then you haven't done very good research, especially considering the plentiful evidence you can obtain yourself.

But still, nothing scientific to refute the shape of Earth.

The history of the science (and evaluation of that science) shows that the earth (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical, yes.
No, it doesn't.
Do you have anything at all to support that completley baseless claim of yours?

Quote
Quote
And again, stated with all the certainty of a religious zealot.
I'm not sure what you are referring to
Your dismisal of gravity and the known shape of Earth, based upon a wilful rejection of the evidence.
You are dismissing reality with all the certainly of a religious zealot.
You appeal to what children will allegedly think the world is before they have been taught anything, or performed observations of their own, or even thought about what the shape is. This is making that claim with no evidence, yet with all the certainty of a religious zealot; and it also follows the exact same kind of thinking of a religious zealot, where you can just decide something with basically no evidence at all, and then conclude that must be true and anything to the contrary is wrong.
And likewise, you claim that Earth appears flat, when in reality it doesn't.
This is just something FEers like to tell themselves. When you look at Earth at the scale that humans typically do, it is not flat. It has a very rough surface at this level, with hills, montains, valleys, oceans, plateus, etc. So no, the world does not appear flat.
It is only when you don't think about what you would actually expect for a round vs flat Earth, or don't bother actually looking, that it appears to be roughly what one might expect if Earth was flat.

And even with that kind of thinking, it still doesn't seem to be flat if you actually know just how much world is out there.

Without that serious thinking the Earth appears to a tiny place, no more than a few 10s to 100s of km wide, where the horizon (at least at sea) is the edge of Earth, with no Earth beyond it.

Also note that any such study on children, even with it being entirely useless due to them not actually investigating the shape at all, needs to ensure the students don't have any information at all from others about the shape of Earth, including from religious books or games or pictures, and that they are not provided any options, such that it comes entirely from them.
And that will be quite difficult to do, as in very large portions of the world, children are taught religious nonsense from quite a young age. And if that religious nonsense directly or indirectly indicates things about the shape of Earth, that will entirely invalidate the study, as now they have been taught the religious view of the shape of Earth.

Quote
I have found that very few people understand or objectively and critically evaluate the evidence
And you not finding them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Or are you just saying this because they don't reach the same conclusion as you?

Quote
This subject is deceptively simple.
No, due to how vast it is, it can be quite difficult. Especially when you are trying to claim something didn't happen or didn't exist.
You need to understand the variety of different types of sources, and the fact that plenty of it will be lost.

Quote
"What is the true shape of the earth?".  A child could get that question answered in a few heartbeats
Yes, just like a religuos zealot could anwer "where did come from" in a few hearbeats by claiming their god created us.
Being able to produce a simple and wrong answer doesn't mean the question is simple.

Quote
If you know the answer to the question, PLEASE provide your answer!  Again, the question is : "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?"
I already addressed that. We will never know.
That is because it would require a perfect historical record, listing everyone and what they thought Earth's shape was and why they thought that, including how that varied over time.
We would then need to look through this record and find out who the first person was.

Such a record simply doesn't exist, so unless we can make time machines, we wont ever be able to answer that question.

Instead we can ask a different question based upon the limited historical record, who are the earliest recorded people to have determined Earth is round and what method did they use?
And as you claim to have done so much research on history, that should be an easy question for you.

Quote
They knew it was round because they were taught as children it was a fact - just like us today!
You are aware this literally makes no sense?
You claim people only think Earth is round because they are taught that it is, and without being taught that they would think it is flat.
But if that was the case, everyone would think it is flat, because no one would have thought it was round and thus no one would teach that it is round.

Your argument defeats itself.
Someone at some point would have had to stop and question that assumption and see if it actually withstands scruitiny, and then finding that it didn't, they make a better model of Earth, and accept that it is round.

Quote
which they took as a given, because they were erroneously taught it was a fact from childhood) and a half a dozen other unvalidated assumptions.
No, which they took as given, due to the evidence supporting that fact. But you don't actually need to know Earth is round to determine the radius using that method. Instead another much simpler conclusion can be used, the fact that the sun is very far away.

Again, you not liking the conclusions and the evidence to support it doesn't make them unvalidated assumptions.

Quote
Quote
But we do know it was long before NASA.
No, we assume that
No, we know that due to the historical record clealry showing plenty of people who knew Earth was round.

Quote
Nasa was the first time anyone had the capability to validate and confirm the shape of the earth
Only if you want to pretend that the only possible way to do so is to go into space and see.
Most people who have actually thought about it accept there are other ways to do so.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2021, 01:20:30 PM
Quote
So we are mistaught.  No one, I repeat, no one involved with the cavendish observation EVER referred to it as an experiment.
Is that why the title of his paper started with "Experiments"? (The full title is "Experiments to Determine the Density of the Earth")
Sure seems like it was an experiment.
The common misconception was that it was an experiment to measure G, when it was an experiment to measure the density of Earth, using the fact that G is a constant.
Either way, it is an experiment to test the universal law of gravitation.

Quote
An experiment is a procedure to validate or invalidate a hypothesis by establishing (ideally) a causal relationship between an IV/Independent Variable/hypothesized cause and a DV/Dependent Variable/hypothesized effect.
Like how Cavendish's experiment validated the fact that mass is attracted to other mass. The IV is mass, the DV is an apparent attractive force.

Quote
Completely unfalsifiable....
No, completely falsifiable. Especially now with a known value of G.
The nonsense you said can be said or literally everything, so by that standard nothing is falsifiable.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 20, 2021, 05:00:21 PM
@jja

Quote
You still haven't answered where you are getting your definition of 'gravitation' from. What is your source?

That's true, I haven't answered that question directly - because it isn't relevant, as I explained. The answer is: the same place everyone else does. 

My point was about the common mistaking of scientific theory (gravitation - regardless of what definition you ascribe to) and law (gravity).

Quote
You can't just redefine words and make up definitions

As you well know, I both can and do.  We all do, but I am conscious  and honest about it.

Quote
to present as evidence for your ideas.

What I am doing (in this specific case) is explaining that the definitions are commonly misunderstood and conflated - for one reason because people are not often aware of the distinction between scientific law and theory.

You cannot even begin a discussion or proper evaluation of science without the proper (and commonly agreed upon, at least for the localized purposes of this discussion) definitions first.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 20, 2021, 06:26:55 PM
@jja

Quote
You still haven't answered where you are getting your definition of 'gravitation' from. What is your source?

That's true, I haven't answered that question directly - because it isn't relevant, as I explained. The answer is: the same place everyone else does. 

My point was about the common mistaking of scientific theory (gravitation - regardless of what definition you ascribe to) and law (gravity).

It's entirely relevant if you're claiming everyone is wrong about gravity, because you decided to call it gravitation and it means something special to you, but you can't explain it. Feelings aren't evidence.

Theories of gravity work just fine for the rest of us. It doesn't stop working just because you decide to change it's definition or say so.  I'm afraid GPS satellites are still up there in orbit no matter how hard you fixate on the word 'gravitation'.

It just looks like you're avoiding talking about details because you don't have any. When you have a working theory of gravity that can predict events with higher accuracy than Newton or Einstein, let us know. I'll even polish your Nobel prize for you, I've been told that helps. :)

Quote
You can't just redefine words and make up definitions

As you well know, I both can and do.  We all do, but I am conscious  and honest about it.

Ok, let me rephrase.

You can't just redefine terms and make up words and expect to have a rational discussion or make any valid points at all.

If you can't even agree on that, no wonder nothing you say makes any sense.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2021, 03:39:56 AM
My point was about the common mistaking of scientific theory (gravitation - regardless of what definition you ascribe to) and law (gravity).
And you are making that mistake.
It is the universal law of gravitation, which was a key part of the early theory of gravitation.

As you well know, I both can and do.  We all do, but I am conscious  and honest about it.
Not when you pretend they mean completely different things to pretend other people said things they didn't.


for one reason because people are not often aware of the distinction between scientific law and theory.
And you don't seem to know the distinction.
You act like gravity is a law and thus it must be 100% true, while gravitation is a theory which means it is just guesswork with no evidence supporting it.

A scientific law is typically a mathematical statement which is part of a theory.
A single theory can have many laws as parts of it.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 23, 2021, 03:15:28 AM
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
But even mapping just continents and having a rough idea of the distances between them will allow one to show that Earth cannot be flat and instead must be roughly spherical.

No, only measuring can do that.  Mapping is for an entirely different purpose.  When we measure for mapping, we don't do so to determine shape.

Quote
Likewise, with solar filter and solar scopes, we can easily establish the sun must be very far away and quite large, from simultaneous observations of it from around Earth and throughout the day. Then using the angle to the sun we can quickly establish just how large this round Earth must be.

Completely wrong, but commonly taught.  Looking up to determine what is down is unscientific and powerful stupid.  Parrallax does not work for long distances, and never works with the lights in the sky.

Quote
We can also measure things like the transit of Venus, or just the direct distance to Venus using radar to establish the size of orbits.

Also commonly taught.  Just fiction.  The radar returns from venus (supposedly) are an interesting claim, the rest is astronomical/cosmological fiction built on millennia of it.

Quote
And if we still have satellites, or the technology to make them/go to space, we still have literal pictures from space showing us Earth and how all the continents are arranged.

So we are meant to believe.  We see pictures/tv, and we are meant to believe/mistake it is real.

Quote
Yes, it is still a large undertaking, but it is vastly easier to do now than it was to do through history.

For the individual it is roughly the same now as ever.  That was my whole point.

Quote
A hypothesis can be either an extremely simple and almost worthless statement, or an actual model. So models do have a big role in the scientific method.

No, they have no role and no place in the scientific method - by definition.  They are meta scientific tools for specific purpose, nothing more.  Hypotheses may be derived or influenced from models, but hypotheses are not models and the two words are separate and distinct for good reason.

Quote
It is a quite deniable, false assertion.

No, it's a plain undeniable fact.  That's why you are flapping your gums, instead of just responding with another method.  There is no other method.  Just the one.  Rigorous and repeated measurement is the only method to determine the shape of physical objects in reality.  This is not arguable.

Quote
The closest you have for a direct measurement of the entire Earth,

Actually, no.  I agree with you, that the closest we have to measurement of the entire earth are measurements of pieces of it that we can create composites from.  Incidentally this IS how most of the artwork produced by nasa (disingenuously as "photos") is produced, but I am leaving satellites and satellite derived data out of the discussion for the time being (unless you insist).

Quote
Even the more "direct" methods still use a reference surface and measure relative to that.

I do appreciate that, and recognize the thin line I am walking.  This is not some semantical trick or debate tactic.  The intent and purpose is NOT in any way to discard or ignore existing measurements.

Quote
You mean the evidence based gravity/gravitation that you don't like.

No, I mean that which does not exist.  This is an in depth physics (and history thereof) discussion, which will take more exploration to become clear!  That is, if you wish to understand - which you may not.

Quote
Is that things just float as there is no reason for them to fall.

Of course not, don't be silly.  What's left, is what was left before!  The stupid and unscientific idea of gravitation is only a few hundred years old.  It is fantastically naive and displays profound bias/ignorance to think that man had no reason for things to fall prior to its creation, or would have none when it was to be once again relegated to obscurity (as it was in newton's time, when he invoked it).

Quote
Already demonstrated that doesn't work as if it did, the energy used to push something to the right should cause it to move to the left.
You seemed to ignore that entirely.

I answered it, but it didn't take because of your indoctrination in one particular framework.  I shall try again - education is a slow process and is not to be rushed.

Things have weight.  Weight is resistance to motion.  Things do not fall because they are "returning" where they originally were. The cardinal directions of up and down are no more explained than the matter itself or its intrinsic properties (of which weight is but one)

Quote
Rather than conserving energy you are destroying it and creating it.

That would be a violation.  You are clearly misunderstanding something.  Could you please walk me through your reasoning on this statement with an example? What I am describing (unlike relativity) is consistent and in accordance with the law of conservation.

Quote
Not when simply made as a claim with no justification or evidence at all.

The inquisitive mind of the student is never sated.  Maybe it's just me, but when I hear wild claims, I WANT to investigate them.  If you can't investigate them or won't accept any amount of justification or evidence - then your days of learning (being a student) are through.

Quote
And as I keep pointing out, you are providing a replacement even if you don't want it to be one. Not providing a replacement would be saying we have no idea why things fall at all.

I am not providing a replacement.  The previous "replacement"/conception exists, and I am merely reminding you of that historical and scientific fact.  Accepting my research conclusions, you are well within your rights to conclude that we have no idea why things fall.  Even without accepting my research conclusions, and believing everything about the presumptive model - you would STILL be well within reason to argue that humanity has no f*ing idea why things fall. We have a placeholder for that knowledge, called "gravitation" but it is as empty now as it was when newton first invoked it.  The core of gravitation (the supposed cause of gravity - the law) is, and always was, "?".  It has been for centuries, and it will likely persist as long as gravitation does (and I know why ;)

Quote
The simplest is a setup akin to the cavendish experiment, which you can find all over youtube.
But less direct are all the satellites used for GPS.
And there is plenty more in the scientific literature. Unless you are planning on dismissing it all as fake?

These are worth discussing and evaluating further.  It is important to recognize that earnest flat earth research (sadly, the minority in my experience) never involves denialism.  Almost every data/experiment/observation that exists has alternative explanation/interpretation - at least in potentia.  So it is with the examples you mentioned.  They aren't fake, they are simply misinterpreted.  Most often this is due to unvalidated assumption which is required by the interpretation.

Quote
It doesn't need to be an entity to be real.

It needs to be measurable to be a part of empirical science.  This is one reason (of many) gravitation is not a (and can never be a) part of science.

Quote
Pure semantics.

True.  Science is a branch of philosophy.  Even if it weren't, the specific/explicit and common definitions of technical vernacular are crucial and not to be regarded flippantly.  These words have definitions, and although the vast majority only learn incorrect ones - better late than never I always say!

Quote
An attempt to separate things falling from the universal attraction of mass, to pretend that one is real while the other is fake.
They are the same thing. Gravity is caused by gravitation, and gravity can also refer to gravitation in general.

You misunderstand.  Gravity is a natural law, gravitation is a theory.  Natural law and theory have separate and distinct definitions in science.  I am not separating anything.  Science makes these distinctions, not me.  It is by definition; i.e. semantical.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 23, 2021, 03:16:02 AM
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
You mean the universal law of gravitation?

No! I mean gravity, the natural law.  The tendency for things that are lifted up, to come back down.

Quote
A law is a mathematical relationship.

Actually, no.  Scientific law isn't required to involve mathematics.  Most of the mathematical formulations of laws we use to day were "backfilled" retroactively.

Quote
Rejecting all that you just have "things fall", no constant rate (as it varies around Earth, another big thing falling being intrinsic can't explain), no explanation for the variation in rate.

All of the explanation is wanted, not needed.  Much of the explanation is already contained in archimedes principle, and as for the infinitesimal variances there exist MANY ways to interpret those through existing/known phenomena (and some more interesting / theoretical options for unknown/hypothetical ones)

Quote
And according to some, that law can be part of a hypothesis, not yet actually tested.
But to test it you need to make predictions based upon that law and then check if they match what is observed.

Thankfully these words already have rigorous definitions, as they are technical vernacular used for vocation.  Law can be included in hypothesis (anything can), but hypotheses and laws are separate and distinct.  (Natural) Law is merely behavior that we consistently observe/measure.  Hypothesis is the hypothetical/proposed cause of an observed phenomenon for the singular purpose of experimental validation.

Quote
So you accept that gravity and gravitation are real?

Gravity is very real, as I've said repeatedly - it is a natural/scientific law!

Gravitation is utter fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It isn't fake, it's fiction.  I don't propose that newton was lying, I propose that he was wrong (as he was about most other things)

Quote
You repeatedly dismiss that evidence for it when you claim it has no experimental or empirical support.

I am aware of the mistaken "evidence" for it, which is not dismissed - merely reinterpreted. It is well worth discussing further.

Quote
You aren't even showing anything wrong with it

I am, but you already know most of what's wrong with it.  They teach you a lot about its shortcoming when you are "educated", in part, to prepare you to play apologist.  The primary challenge here is one of education.  It takes time, and needs to happen in its due course.  By asking specific questions, you stand the best chance of getting specific answers that might help you better understand.

I could list 100 things "wrong" with it, and so could any physicist for the past 3 centuries.  There is more wrong with it than there is right at the current date, and it will only get worse from here.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 04:13:15 AM
No, only measuring can do that.
Mapping is measuring and allows you to determine the gaussian curvature, which is a very big part of the shape.

Quote
Quote
Likewise, with solar filter and solar scopes, we can easily establish the sun must be very far away and quite large, from simultaneous observations of it from around Earth and throughout the day. Then using the angle to the sun we can quickly establish just how large this round Earth must be.
Completely wrong
Just what is wrong about it?

You thinking it is stupid doesn't magically make it so.

Quote
Parrallax does not work for long distances, and never works with the lights in the sky.
Why not?
What magic causes it to no longer work?

Quote
astronomical/cosmological fiction built on millennia of it.
You mean it shows you are wrong so you reject it.
Dismissing it as fiction doesn't magically make it so.

Quote
For the individual it is roughly the same now as ever.  That was my whole point.
And it is still wrong.

Quote
No, they have no role and no place in the scientific method - by definition.
Again, just continually rejecting stuff like that won't help your case.
They allow you to make predictions which can then be tested.
You are going to need more than just your continually dismissal to convince any sane person.

Quote
No, it's a plain undeniable fact.
Then why did I just deny it, and also explain why it is wrong?
You need more than just repeating the same assertion to justify your claim.

Quote
Quote
The closest you have for a direct measurement of the entire Earth, are photos from space
Actually, no.  I agree with you
So you accept the photos?

Quote
this IS how most of the artwork produced by nasa (disingenuously as "photos") is produced
No, those which are composites are typically clearly indicated as such. Meanwhile they are plenty of actual photos, such as those from GEOS and DSCOVR (as well as other agencies).

Quote
I am leaving satellites and satellite derived data out of the discussion for the time being (unless you insist).
Why should we leave out the only thing you are saying is good enough to determine the shape of Earth?
The only way to do that is if you admit there are alternatives, and that we can indirectly determine the shape of Earth, such as by measuring the distance between locations on its surface, or by using the stars/sky.

Quote
The intent and purpose is NOT in any way to discard or ignore existing measurements.
It sure seems to be. Because those existing measurements show beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.

Quote
Quote
You mean the evidence based gravity/gravitation that you don't like.
No, I mean that which does not exist.
You wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

Quote
The stupid and unscientific idea
The stupid and unscientific idea is that things just fall for no reason at all, or that everything has a natural place and will try to go back to its place.

The scientific and not-stupid idea is gravitation.

Quote
I answered it
No, you dodged it.
You claimed things fall because you give them energy when you lift them up.
If that was the case then things should fall to the left when you give them energy by pushing them to the right.

So no, the energy used to lift things DOES NOT MAKE THEM FALL!

And calling me indoctrinated because I don't accept your BS and can explain why it is wrong is just a pathetic insult which doesn't help the discussion at all and indicates that you aren't really interested in a discussion and more just want to attack science and reality without any argument against either.

Quote
Things have weight.  Weight is resistance to motion.
No, it isn't. They are 2 fundamentally different things.
Weight is a downwards force which causes an object to accelerate towards the ground.
Resistance to motion is actually resistance to change in motion. This is based upon mass.
We can also tell that it isn't weight because weight varies with location while mass remains the same.
Again, ignoring this does not help your case. It just shows you have no interest in reality.

Quote
Things do not fall because they are "returning" where they originally were.
Again, they aren't.
If I move something to the right, it doesn't move back to the left from where it originally came.

Quote
intrinsic properties (of which weight is but one)
Again, if that was the case, weight wouldn't vary.

Quote
Could you please walk me through your reasoning on this statement with an example?
An object moves upwards upwards with a particular kinetic energy. It magically slows down with that kinetic energy being destroyed.
Then it reaches its peak and have 0 kinetic energy.
Then it starts falling back down, increasing its velocity and having energy created from nothing.

Without gravitational potential energy, you have a violation of the conservation of energy.

Quote
Maybe it's just me, but when I hear wild claims, I WANT to investigate them.
To me, it depends on what the claims are.
If they claims are wild and appear to be based upon wilful rejection of reality, especially when made without evidence, I will be more likely to just dismiss them and move on.

Quote
If you can't investigate them or won't accept any amount of justification or evidence - then your days of learning (being a student) are through.
Good thing I didn't say I wouldn't accept justification and evidence and instead pointed out that the claims were made without that.

Quote
I am not providing a replacement.  The previous "replacement"/conception exists
Which is still a replacement, which you are still providing.

Quote
The core of gravitation (the supposed cause of gravity - the law) is, and always was, "?"
Just like every other fundamental force.
Again, do you reject all of them?

Quote
Almost every data/experiment/observation that exists has alternative explanation/interpretation - at least in potentia.
Yes, where you throw in a bunch of elaborate overcomplicated BS to try to keep what you think is true matching.
I will prefer to stick to the simpler options.

But i do notice that you don't give such an alternative.

Quote
It needs to be measurable to be a part of empirical science.
And gravitation/gravity meets that just fine.
It is measurable.
Again, repeating the same lie again and again just shows you do not give a daman about reality and that your position is based upon a wilful rejection of reality.

Quote
These words have definitions
And the definitions vary depending on context.
They are not as rigorously defined as you would like.

Quote
You misunderstand.  Gravity is a natural law, gravitation is a theory.
No, you continue to reject reality.
Gravity is gravitation.
There is the universal law of gravitation. This is a scientific law, backed up by mountains of evidence that you choose to reject without cause.
You are the one making the distinction, not science. All so you can pretend one is real and the other is fake.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 04:24:12 AM
Quote
You mean the universal law of gravitation?
No! I mean gravity, the natural law.
The law for gravity, is the law for gravitation. F=GMm/r^2.
Unless you want to get to GR.

Quote
Actually, no.  Scientific law isn't required to involve mathematics.  Most of the mathematical formulations of laws we use to day were "backfilled" retroactively.
Us making up nice formulae for them doesn't mean they didn't involve math.
You can express the same mathematical relationship with words.

Quote
All of the explanation is wanted, not needed.
And much of hte explanation is already known.
Masses attract other masses. Things fall because of the great mass of Earth.

Quote
Much of the explanation is already contained in archimedes principle
That contains no explanation at all.
That merely states that an object will displace its own weight in a fluid.
It doesn't explain why it has weight in the first place.
It doesn't explain why the weight varies around Earth.
It doesn't even explain why it is directed down.

And again, it is quite trivial to show this principle using gravity.

Are you confusing this with Aristotle's idea of everything having a natural place?
Where magically that place only applies up and down?

Quote
as for the infinitesimal variances
We are not discussing infintesimal variances.
We are discussing a variation of ~ 0.05 m/s^2. That is a quite large varation.

Quote
there exist MANY ways to interpret those through existing/known phenomena
Stop just asserting that and provide some.

Currently there is one very simple way:
Graivty causes things to fall, and as Earth rotates on its axis, it causes an apparent reduction in weight, and causes Earth to be oblate, causing a greater distance to the centre of mass of Earth and thus a smaller acceleration.

So what alternative can you provide?
And remember, your ideas about seismic activity and the air have already been refuted.

Quote
Thankfully these words already have rigorous definitions
And where can we find these definitions from an official source rather than just you?

Because the way I was taught was that a law was a mathematical statement, while a hypothesis does not need to be.

So just what official source are you using? And what makes that the definitive source, rather that it just being its opinion on what these words mean?

Quote
Gravitation is utter fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever.
i.e. you are dismissing it as fake.
I don't care if you want to pretend that calling it fiction isn't saying it is fake. Again, it is semantic BS that is avoiding the point.

Quote
I am aware of the mistaken "evidence" for it, which is not dismissed - merely reinterpreted.
All you have provided is dismissal. You haven't provided any reinterpretation.

Quote
Quote
You aren't even showing anything wrong with it
I am
No, you aren't.
You are calling it fiction and falsely claiming there is no evidnece for it.
The closest you caim to showing there was a problem with it was falsely claiming there is a pardox with gravity, which I then refuted and showed exactly what you would expect with gravity, which you haven't responded to yet.

So no, you aren't showing anything wrong with it.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 23, 2021, 05:51:43 AM
@timeisup

Quote
That is most defiantly not the case.

I don't know if this is a typo or not, but I like it!

Quote
The arguments you use are very narrow forgetting about how interconnected everything is.

The scientific facts we are evaluating are very narrow, and the "interconnected"-ness you speak of is a foundational part of a narrative mythological fiction (creation myth), misrepresented as science from childhood.  I am not saying there isn't interconnectedness to reality, I am saying that we humans see interconnected "wholeness" even (and perhaps especially) when it is not there and that this IS cognitive dissonance (though this is woefully misunderstood by most).  Much like our conception of the field of view that makes up our sight : we THINK we see an interconnected whole - but what we ACTUALLY see are discreet packets/slices of the totality of what can be seen and the majority of the world we think we inhabit is filled in programmatically by the mind.  The wholeness is an illusion the mind creates on and of its own, and it manifests/reflects itself in mythology too.  When you reach your hand out to grasp at this perceived/supposed "interconnectedness" you find that it isn't really there - we just expect it is and see it that way.

Quote
I don't see how the earth as we know and experience it could be flat.

Allow me to try and help!  IF the world is flat, then everything we know and experience occurs on a flat earth.  Most of the things you mentioned have nothing to do with the actual shape of the world, and the other things are just creation mythology disingenuously represented as science since childhood.

Quote
How would you explain the difference between the lack of any other flat structure in the solar system

The solar system and universe are supposed/observed to be anti-isotropically (against prediction and expectation) flat.  But in any case, looking up to determine what is the opposite direction is unscientific and stupid.  The objects we observe (lights in the sky) are presumed far too distant to make any certain determinations as to size/shape/composition.  We can speculate sure, and astronomers have been doing just that and building on it for millennia - however, that is not a scientific process and the product of that speculation is pseudoscience mythology we misrepresent as science to children.

Even if we were certain of what we were seeing, and their shapes, it would not necessarily have relevance to the shape of the thing WE are standing on.  That only seems like a ridiculous assertion when you are steeped in the mythology from childhood.

Quote
what forces would produce seven spherical planets along with hundreds of spherical moons and one flat planet!

There are no rodenberrian "planets", that's all sci-fi tv nonsense.  There is the earth, and then there are lights in the sky that we don't really understand.  The idea that they too are "terra firma" is a very modern view, first created and driven by fiction and hollywood.  It should be ultimately unsurprising that we were wrong about such lofty and non-terrestrial (inconsequential) things.

Quote
Why were the laws of physics out to lunch when the earth formed?

Again, you are simply failing to rationalize your mythology.  The laws of physics do not explain planetary formation, in any way.  Our creation mythology purported that they did, but we were lied to.

Quote
Mars is good example of what happens when a planetary body looses most of its magnetic field, the solar wind strips away any atmosphere and any water boils off into space.

So we see on tv, yes.  In reality, it is just a light in the sky that we don't understand.

Quote
According to what we know about magnetic field generation a flat stationary earth would simply not be capable of producing a magnetic field. Take away our magnetic field and all life on earth would be no more.

What we know about magnetic field generation is a MAJOR problem for the presumptive mythology/model.  This is regardless of the shape of the world.  The "space born doom" thing is little more than fear porn for manipulation purposes.  The sky is falling chicken little, give me more funding.

Quote
How do you explain the formation of a flat planet that is capable of generating a magnetic field?

Science should aim high, but at the end of the day it only consists of what we can study.  We can't study the formation of the earth, regardless of what shape it is.  Again, you just want something to replace the defunct creation mythology you've had as a pacifier since childhood.  No more pacifier, instead - get more comfortable with honesty.  The answer to the vast majority of questions is "we don't know".

Quote
What are the mechanisms you are suggesting that are currently unknown to science?

Many, but none that I'm suggesting.  Everything works the same way if the world is flat.  This is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JJA on January 23, 2021, 05:51:48 AM
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
But even mapping just continents and having a rough idea of the distances between them will allow one to show that Earth cannot be flat and instead must be roughly spherical.

No, only measuring can do that.  Mapping is for an entirely different purpose.  When we measure for mapping, we don't do so to determine shape.

So where are you getting your definition of mapping and measuring from? Please provide a reference to where mapping can't determine the shape.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 23, 2021, 09:25:47 AM
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
Mapping is measuring and allows you to determine the gaussian curvature, which is a very big part of the shape.

Lol, fair enough.  I meant mapping in the non mathematical context, of making maps.  Cartography.  Of course topographical maps exist, but even these do not measure the "curve" of the oceans, or large lakes, or salt flats - chiefly because it isn't there to measure and only slightly secondarily because there is widely believed to be no need to.

Quote
Just what is wrong about it? You thinking it is stupid doesn't magically make it so.

That's true, and in general I should probably try to avoid subjective language like "stupid". I do it purely rhetorically, as if that makes it better.

The likely (as I really would have to ask you for specific procedure detail before I commented) answer to your valid and justified question is that we may not know the bounds of the earth :(.

Quote
What magic causes it to no longer work?

Fortunately, I do not believe in magic and so instead I expect it has to do with what we are looking at and what we are looking at it through (rather than the optical / physical laws changing on some distance scale etc.).  All I know is, that we expect that it should work - and with the lights in the sky, it doesn't.  It gives wacky answers (like the 3000 mile figure for the sun) and is consistently and increasingly unreliable as the scale increases. 

Quote
You mean it shows you are wrong so you reject it.
Dismissing it as fiction doesn't magically make it so.

True.  Likewise your fervency and certainty in its reality (due to having been taught that through conditioning by rote under the guise of education), does not magically make it real.  We seem to agree that the default position is best one of skepticism.

Quote
And it is still wrong.

I think you are just saying that to disagree. You get my point, and agree with it as evidenced by other statements. It is not an insignificant task to measure a whole world, and it isn't a whole heck of a lot easier for an individual (especially unfunded) today to measure the thing than ever before (even if it IS most easy today - with the glory of modern technology)

Quote
They allow you to make predictions which can then be tested.

Also not a part of the scientific method. I know, I know - heresy!

There is no "make predictions" or "test predictions" step.  There is a test hypothesis by experiment step.  The rest is meta science at best, and pseudo science at worst.

Quote
You are going to need more than just your continually dismissal to convince any sane person.

My aim is most certainly not convincing, and how many (self diagnosed) sane people visit this website anyhow?  I engage in rational discourse for the, ideally, mutual pursuit of truth (and failing that, knowledge will suffice).

Quote
Then why did I just deny it, and also explain why it is wrong?

Well, one - because you CAN automatically gainsay anything and two, because an explanation allowed you to flap your gums and avoid recognizing the obvious, as I said.  There is no other method to determine the shape of physical objects than measurement, regardless of  specific type of measurement (which is mostly irrelevant, though direct measurement is always better than inferential)

Quote
You need more than just repeating the same assertion to justify your claim.

It isn't really a claim, it's almost a tautology/truism.  Unless I am misunderstanding you, it is very odd that you would feel so strongly that measurement isn't the only way to determine the shape of physical objects, and then NOT provide a single example of how that might work (because from where I'm sitting - it is, by definition, impossible and nonsensical).

Quote
No, those which are composites are typically clearly indicated as such. Meanwhile they are plenty of actual photos, such as those from GEOS and DSCOVR (as well as other agencies).

That's true, those are claimed to be photos - much like the apollo "photos" were.  They are laughable in terms of realism - but good enough for some to keep the torch lit and so the serial publications continue on to the next exciting episode.

Quote
Why should we leave out the only thing you are saying is good enough to determine the shape of Earth?

Again you misunderstand. I think we both agree that using satellites is the quickest way to get the data - and certainly that it is outside the realm of feasibility for the individual to do so.  But I in no way feel that it is the ONLY way, nor only way "good enough". 

Like I said, perhaps "holistically" it is not feasible to get the whole world "in frame" regardless of what shape it is, due to its size, and so smaller chunks should do.

Quote
The only way to do that is if you admit there are alternatives, and that we can indirectly determine the shape of Earth, such as by measuring the distance between locations on its surface, or by using the stars/sky.

There's almost never ONLY one way (to skin a cat, etc.).  In this case, the simplest place to begin measuring is flat, still, and ideally frozen, water.  It does not require unvalidated assumption, nor unsound inference.  The globe cannot be a part of empirical science until that curvature is measured in physical reality - which has never been done and doing so would violate existing natural law.

Quote
It sure seems to be. Because those existing measurements show beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.

Perhaps some of the satellite based data does.  In general the measurements that exist don't show and/or prove what people expect/learned they do.

Quote
You wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

There really is no evidence of gravitations manifest physical reality, nor was there in the past.  It is not even defined well enough to begin looking for it, that includes today.

Cavendish observations (not experiments) appear to show a minuscule attraction between certain types of matter (almost exclusively brass/lead).  What they measure is that minuscule attraction - gravitation, IF it exists, is wholly unknown, unmeasurable, and unmanipulable.  The chief reason for this is it is non-real.

I know it will take some rinse and repeats for any of this to start sinking in.  Education by rote is grueling, and so is repairing the damage caused by it.

Quote
The stupid and unscientific idea is that things just fall for no reason at all, or that everything has a natural place and will try to go back to its place.

I generally agree that both of those are stupid and unscientific ideas.  They are both your submissions...

Quote
The scientific and not-stupid idea is gravitation.

So we are taught in the classroom.  But is it true and how can we tell?  I have researched the questions thoroughly and found that newton was fully aware of both how unscientific and stupid gravitation was, and as a result explicitly asked that his name NOT be associated with it.  He personally chalked it all up to god, the big G in the sky.

Quote
No, you dodged it.

That was not my intention.  My purpose is to be understood and criticized, so I will always continue to attempt to do so.  Let's try again.

Quote
You claimed things fall because you give them energy when you lift them up.

Correct, that's where the energy for falling comes from - precisely.

Quote
If that was the case then things should fall to the left when you give them energy by pushing them to the right.

You keep saying that, but you aren't providing your reasoning / logic.  One of the things is observed consistently, and so is a natural law (gravity).  The other, your fledgling physics of "return to start"-ism is not.  What explanation is required for something that DOESN'T happen?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 23, 2021, 09:27:43 AM
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
So no, the energy used to lift things DOES NOT MAKE THEM FALL!

Yes, it does.  Each and every time. This does not vary with the shape of the world, nor conceptions thereof.  In truth, it doesn't even vary with the standard conceptualization(s) of gravitation.  It is 100% consistent across the board.  Good science stamp of approval.

Quote
And calling me indoctrinated because I don't accept your BS and can explain why it is wrong is just a pathetic insult

I don't mean it that way at all! I should be more careful, I certainly don't want to offend/insult anyone or otherwise make this discussion any more emotional than it ought to be.  I try, and admittedly fail a lot, to replace instances of "indoctrination"/"conditioning"/"miseducation" etc. directed at "you" to be directed, more accurately and properly, at us/we.  Not YOUR indoctrination, OUR indoctrination!!!

Quote
which doesn't help the discussion at all and indicates that you aren't really interested in a discussion and more just want to attack science and reality without any argument against either.

I could not agree more.  Ad-hominem has NO place in rational discourse, or effective communication of any kind.  It was not my intention at all to insult, though it could have potentially been rhetorical to incite/inspire/engage.  I mostly see it as "matter of fact", from my perspective fwiw.

Quote
No, it isn't. They are 2 fundamentally different things.

In the standard teaching, yes - I recognize that.

Quote
Again, ignoring this does not help your case. It just shows you have no interest in reality.

Quite the contrary!  I am really suggesting that the minor variances in weight measured at different locations on earth have an unknown or misunderstood cause.  Not ignoring, reinterpreting!

Quote
Quote
Things do not fall because they are "returning" where they originally were.
Again, they aren't.

Right, we are in agreement.  There is no reason to expect that something wants to go back where it came from, but things do resist change/motion.

Quote
Again, if that was the case, weight wouldn't vary.

You sound awfully convinced.  Why couldn't weight both be an intrinsic property and minorly variate with other factors (which we know it does)?

Quote
An object moves upwards upwards with a particular kinetic energy. It magically slows down with that kinetic energy being destroyed...Without gravitational potential energy, you have a violation of the conservation of energy

I see, I should have suspected as much.  The problem is one of conceptualization.  You put energy in to lift the object upwards, kinetic energy if you will.  Then you stop.  If there were a mountain ledge, or roof where you stopped - the object could just sit there happily at rest as it was initially.

Without the ledge, the coyote, ahem - object realizes that there is no ground beneath it.  It falls, with the energy used to lift it (and nothing else), as archimedes principle describes and for the experimentally validatable reasons described within it.

To me, it depends on what the claims are.
Quote
If they claims are wild and appear to be based upon wilful rejection of reality, especially when made without evidence, I will be more likely to just dismiss them and move on.

That sounds fair to me!

Quote
Good thing I didn't say I wouldn't accept justification and evidence and instead pointed out that the claims were made without that.

That is good! My reason for saying that was because MANY people engage in this subject who do not wish to learn.  There are perhaps even many more than that for which no amount of evidence or justification could ever change their minds.  I saw a recent post by one of the admins here that captured it perfectly ; "We already know that empirically the world is certainly flat, therefore any representation or argument otherwise is clearly fraudulent."  That is, sadly, the mandated default view for all "educated" - of course with one minor insignificant word changed.

Quote
Which is still a replacement, which you are still providing.

Sure, sure.  If you insist.  I just wanted to make clear that it isn't my idea, or something that I'm "providing" as much as discussing what is left over once you have removed, and what existed prior to, gravitation from equation.

Quote
Just like every other fundamental force.
Again, do you reject all of them?

The other ones are real, measurable, empirical forces. Actual forces.

They are not fictional "pseudoforces" without any demonstrable reality.

Quote
Yes, where you throw in a bunch of elaborate overcomplicated BS to try to keep what you think is true matching.
I will prefer to stick to the simpler options.

I am a scientific "traditionalist" in many ways.  One of the core posits of traditional science is that nature is simple. And I am often an advocate of occams razor.

However, what if it were really terribly complicated? We'd spend our time working on simple things we could understand and being constantly wrong!  We'd work to make equations more beautiful and reduced/succinct at the expense of true knowledge and science (and there are physicists out there that claim this is exactly what has been happening)

Quote
But i do notice that you don't give such an alternative.

Like I said, it's a demo job.  Construction doesn't arrive 'til we haul this old junk away.

I just want you to understand that it isn't a trick.  It isn't a game, or a debate.  It is an earnest discussion, and search for truth (ideally).

Quote
And gravitation/gravity meets that just fine.
It is measurable.

No, it doesn't.  Gravitation isn't even defined well enough to begin (if you wanted to measure it).

You think that the apparent attraction in cavendish is caused by gravitation, but you can't prove it.  In fact, you can't even properly define (let alone establish) what the gravitation is - no one can.

Quote
They are not as rigorously defined as you would like.

Most of the time that's true, which is why I savor the technical vernacular.

Quote
No, you continue to reject reality.

This has less to do with reality, and more to do with definition.

Quote
Gravity is gravitation.

Colloquially, and even originally (at inception), yes - that's true.  In modern scientific vernacular, there is a distinction.  One is a natural law, and the other is a theory.  However, because the mathematical description of the law contains non-real (purely mathematical) terms taken from the theory - the two have been conflated which helps to further obscure the distinction of law and theory in the minds of many.

Quote
There is the universal law of gravitation. This is a scientific law, backed up by mountains of evidence that you choose to reject without cause.

Not really, it is just presented that way.  The universal law of gravitation isn't valid because it invokes non-real, purely mathematical terms.  It also fails to predict much of the motions of the heavens, but that is another matter.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 23, 2021, 09:32:11 AM
@jackblack ( part 3 bonus )

Quote
You are the one making the distinction, not science. All so you can pretend one is real and the other is fake.

I am highlighting the distinction, not creating it.  I am "providing" clarification to that effect.

Natural law exists separate to the mathematical formulations thereof (though they ought be consistent/unified).  The theory (of gravitation) that is used in the description of the law is what is in contention, not the law.

I recognize that even the nomenclature itself has been conflated together i.e. law of universal gravitation.

Natural law and theory are different.  Perhaps an example might help :

It is a theory that the sky is blue because of diffraction, it is a law that it is blue.  We could come up with equations based on the theory and then call one of those the "law of the sky".  One day someone could come up and say that the blue color is actually because of the oxygen content in the upper air and oceans, turning the theory on its head.  The law perseveres through all of it - completely unphased, and not caring in the slightest how we choose to represent it mathematically.

Gravity the law is thousands of years old.  It is not going anywhere, though its mathematical description can and has changed radically (as the theory has changed).

We don't have to agree on the specific words used, we just have to be consistent so that we understand one another!  As I said to jja, it is less about the specific definitions and much more about the acute awareness of the difference between scientific law and theory.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 03:39:17 PM
Quote
Mapping is measuring and allows you to determine the gaussian curvature, which is a very big part of the shape.
Lol, fair enough.  I meant mapping in the non mathematical context, of making maps.  Cartography.
And so did I.
You can use the measurements from that cartography to determine the gaussian curvature.
The fact that the accurate maps of Earth require Earth to be a globe, or to have a scale (sometimes anisotropic) that changes based upon location based upon Earth being a sphere, shows that it has a nearly constant positive gaussian curvature.

This means that Earth must be roughly spherical.
It cannot be flat.
What it doesn't show is that we are living on the outside of the sphere. It allows the possibility of us living on the inside of the sphere.

If Earth was actually flat, we would have all maps being basically the same, where the only distinction is the location of the cuts to join Earth together (and even that would require Earth to exist in a strange space and otherwise just have the same edge for all maps), and each of these maps would have a constant scale throughout.

Quote
The likely (as I really would have to ask you for specific procedure detail before I commented) answer to your valid and justified question is that we may not know the bounds of the earth :(.
And that just changes it from being the distance to the sun must be many times the size of Earth to many times the size of the known regions of Earth.

Quote
we expect that it should work - and with the lights in the sky, it doesn't.  It gives wacky answers (like the 3000 mile figure for the sun)
You mean it shows Earth is round.
There is nothing wacky about that.
It is only when you try to force Earth to be flat that you have these "wacky" answers.

Quote
Likewise your fervency and certainty in its reality (due to having been taught that through conditioning by rote under the guise of education)
No, due to the evidence supporting it.

Quote
Quote
And it is still wrong.
I think you are just saying that to disagree.
No. I'm saying it because it is wrong.
Yes, it is still hard, but it is vastly easier now than it was in the ancient world.
You can obtain much more accurate equipment, and travel around the world much more easily.

Quote
Quote
They allow you to make predictions which can then be tested.
Also not a part of the scientific method. I know, I know - heresy!
No, a very important part.
You make a prediction based upon the hypothesis and then test if that prediction is correct. If it is not, it indicates the hypothesis is wrong.
How else do you plan on testing the hyothesis?

Quote
I engage in rational discourse for the, ideally, mutual pursuit of truth (and failing that, knowledge will suffice).
Rational discource is not just repeated dismissal of reality.

Quote
Quote
Then why did I just deny it, and also explain why it is wrong?
Well, one - because you CAN automatically gainsay anything and two, because an explanation allowed you to flap your gums and avoid recognizing the obvious, as I said.
You are the one refusing to recognise the obvious.
There are many ways to determine the shape of an object. Direct measurements of the object are not the only way.

If you are happy with indirect measurements being included then that includes measuring the angle between Earth and a star (or other celestial object).
These indirect measurements allow you to make a model which produce these measurements.

By "measurement of an object" I take it to mean directly measuring the physical object. Not an indirect measurement.

Quote
It isn't really a claim
It is most certainly a claim, at least as you presented it.
You claim a model has no place in science, and constructing models and comparing them with reality cannot allow to determine the shape of an object.

A simple counter example is by looking at/measuring the shadow cast by the object, or measuring the the angle between the surface and some reference point.

Quote
They are laughable in terms of realism
Why? Because they show Earth is roughly spherical and you don't like that?

Again, you just dismiss the evidence with no justification.

Quote
I think we both agree that using satellites is the quickest way to get the data - and certainly that it is outside the realm of feasibility for the individual to do so.
That depends on the individual. You can have a small satellite hitch a ride on a launch of a bigger satellite for a relative small price, but still quite expensive for the individual.
Or you can just get the data from the satellites already up there.

But why must everything be done at the level of the indivudal?
Our knowledge is built by cooperation, not by claiming that everyone is lying and trying to hide the truth.

Quote
There's almost never ONLY one way (to skin a cat, etc.).  In this case, the simplest place to begin measuring is flat, still, and ideally frozen, water.
You mean level.
I disagree with the frozen part though.
Once it is frozen it is no longer certain to be level. The frozen surface can be distorted, and the surface can be eorded.
So the better option would be calm water.

But any measurement such as this will have a degree of uncertainty.
And that means you can't just measure a small bit of water in a sink. Instead you need to measure a very significant body of water where that curvature will be significant.
Over 5 km, the dip from one side to the other is roughly 2 m. The bulge at the centre would be roughly 0.5 m.
That means you need to be able to accurately measure a distance on the order of m or less, over a distance of 5 km.

And you cannot assume the water will be flat to use that as a reference.
You also can't use something like a piece of string for your level because it bows, and typically the string will bow more than Earth curves.

This means you would need something else, such as measuring the angle of dip or distance to the horizon from a known height, as done by Al Biruni, or by measuring how much of an object is obscured based upon distance.
But both of those need to account for refraction.

But another method, far less direct, is to measure the angle to a celestial object. Do this for multiple locations and use that to determine the shape of Earth.

Quote
The globe cannot be a part of empirical science until that curvature is measured in physical reality
And it has been. Maybe not in the way you want it to be, but it has been measured.

Quote
doing so would violate existing natural law.
What natural law?
Do you mean the blatantly false law commonly promoted by FEers that water will magically be flat?
Because that isn't a natural law.
That is the false claim of the FEers, and goes directly aginst plenty of observations of water.

Quote
In general the measurements that exist don't show and/or prove what people expect/learned they do.
They sure seem to. And it is only be having nature itself conspire to make Earth appear to be round that they don't.

Quote
There really is no evidence of gravitations manifest physical reality
Again, you not wanting it to exist doesn't mean it wont exist.
There is plenty of evidence for it.

Quote
Cavendish observations (not experiments)
I notice you never responed to the fact that even he called it an experiment.

Quote
What they measure ... IF it exists, is ... unmeasurable
So you are saying that they measured something that is unmeasurable.
Do you not notice the massive contradiction in that?
They measured something that is very real and measurable.

Again, you wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

Quote
I know it will take some rinse and repeats for any of this to start sinking in.
No, it will take you justifying your claims.
You repeating the same lie wont make me accept it.
You would need to explain away all the evidence for gravity/gravitation for me to accept it isn't real, or point out an actual logical problem with it.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 03:40:10 PM
Quote
I generally agree that both of those are stupid and unscientific ideas.  They are both your submissions...
No, they aren't.
They are what you are promoting.

Quote
So we are taught in the classroom.  But is it true and how can we tell?
You can tell by carrying out some of the experiments yourself.

Quote
I have researched the questions thoroughly and found that newton was fully aware of both how unscientific and stupid gravitation was
So you claim, but I find no evidence of that.
His Principia Mathematica sure seems to indicate the opposite.

Quote
You keep saying that, but you aren't providing your reasoning / logic.
You are claiming that by providing energy when moving an object you cause it to then use that energy to move in the opposite direction.
That means that if you move it to the right, providing energy to do so, it should then move back to the left.

Quote
One of the things is observed consistently
Yes, gravitation.
What isn't is the idea that things just magically fall, as that is not consistent as the rate which it falls varies.
And not everything falls. Instead some things rise.

Quote
it doesn't even vary with the standard conceptualization(s) of gravitation.
Yes it does.
The simplest way to see this is an object in space, never on Earth, falling to Earth.
Things didn't start on Earth and get lifted up. So if it was just the energy provided to them to lift them which makes them fall, then they would never fall, and Earth would never have formed.

With the standard conceptualisations, things lose energy gravitaional potential energy when they fall, so they have negative gravtational potential energy, and thus they need to be provided with energy to lift.
i.e. it is the exact opposite to what you claim.
It takes energy to lift things, because they lost that energy when they fell.

Quote
Not YOUR indoctrination, OUR indoctrination!!!
No, not my indoctrination.
Even if you want to think you were indoctrinated, that doesn't mean we are.
Again, it is just an excuse to dismiss reality and insult and belittle the position of those defending reality by pretending the only reason they are doing so is because they are indoctrinated.

So the better approach would be to completely avoid saying indoctrination at all.

Quote
In the standard teaching
And in reality, as repeatedly explained, which you keep on ignoring.
Weight and mass are fundamentally different.

Quote
I am really suggesting that the minor variances in weight measured at different locations on earth have an unknown or misunderstood cause.
It doesn't matter, it still means that weight varies. It is not an instrinsic property of the substance.
Mass doesn't vary like that and thus is the instric property.

Quote
There is no reason to expect that something wants to go back where it came from
And thus there is no reason (without something like gravity/gravitation) to think that lifting something should make it fall.

Quote
Why couldn't weight both be an intrinsic property and minorly variate with other factors (which we know it does)?
Because that directly contradicts what an intrinsic property is.
An intrinsic property is a property of the thing which does not depend on external factors.
If it is based upon things external to it then it is an extrinsic property.
So if weight varies with factors external to the object, such as the object's location, it is an extrinsic property, not an intrinsic one.

Unless weight, the rest mass of an object is an intrinsic property. It doesn't matter what you do to the object, where you take it and so on, as long as you do not take or give it anything, it's mass remains constant.

Quote
You put energy in to lift the object upwards, kinetic energy if you will.
And unless you have something like gravitational potential energy, the object will continue moving upwards with the same kinetic energy as otherwise it would vioalte the conservation of energy.

Quote
as archimedes principle describes
Again, that is nothing like archimedes principle.


Quote
There are perhaps even many more than that for which no amount of evidence or justification could ever change their minds.
I find that is far more common in the FE camp.

Quote
The other ones are real, measurable, empirical forces. Actual forces.
And other than the debate on in gravity is a real force or a pseudo/inertial force, that matches gravity.
Gravity is real, measurable and empirical, with demonstrable reality.

So why reject gravity?
It seems to be just you not liking it (perhaps because the logical consequence of it (along with other things) is that Earth is round), and thus rejecting all the evidence for it to pretend it is fiction.
You could do the same with every other force, with all the evidence just being "misinterpretation".

Quote
However, what if it were really terribly complicated?
Then there would be evidence of that complication.
For an example with gravity, we have the orbit of Mercury, showing that it wasn't as simple as Newton proposed.
There is also the issue of galactic rotation curves which could indicate that at the very long range gravity doesn't follow the inverse square law, or that we just aren't accounting for all the matter.

The point is, there is no reason to overcomplicate all the evidence for gravitation to pretend it is fiction and something else is causing all that. Especially when you just leave it as an unknown.
This simple gravitation allows us to explain so much.

Even having F=GMm/r^2 is more complex than a much simpler idea of F= m * 9.8 m/s^2.
And the F=GMm/r^2 is actually meant to include a unit vector pointing to the center of M or m with F being a vector as well.

But there is no reason to add complications when there is a much simpler option.
And that applies to FE vs RE as well.
There is no need to add the massive complication of a massive global conspiracy and nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round, rather than the much simpler option of Earth being round.

Quote
Like I said, it's a demo job.  Construction doesn't arrive 'til we haul this old junk away.
And that simply isn't how science works.
When you discover that a model/theory is limited, you don't simply discard it. You improve it, with the simpler model being an approximation.

Quote
Quote
And gravitation/gravity meets that just fine.
It is measurable.
No, it doesn't.  Gravitation isn't even defined well enough to begin (if you wanted to measure it).
Again, how isn't it?
People have measured it. It is defined just as well as any other fundamental force.

Quote
You think that the apparent attraction in cavendish is caused by gravitation, but you can't prove it.
And the same would apply to everything.
Science does not deal with proof. The closest it comes to that is disproof.
You can dismiss all of the science for the working of a computer and just it is coincidence that they work, but all the science it is based upon is fiction which cannot be proven or measured, or even defined well enough.

Quote
Colloquially, and even originally (at inception), yes - that's true.  In modern scientific vernacular, there is a distinction.  One is a natural law, and the other is a theory.
No, that is not the distinction.
The only time an actual distinction appears is when people use gravity as the acceleration towards a single object, whereas gravitation is the mutual attraction between 2 objects.
In that sense they are both part of the same theory, and both have simple laws.

The distinction would be F=GMm/r^2 vs a=GM/r^2, which will sometimes simpligy to a=g.
These are both laws.

Quote
Not really, it is just presented that way.
Yes really.
Again, you not liking it wont change that fact.
It is a simple law, which is backed up by plenty of evidence.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 03:59:49 PM
Quote
The universal law of gravitation isn't valid because it invokes non-real, purely mathematical terms.
You wanting to dismiss the terms as fictional does not make it so.
The only thing even remotely resembling a non-real term is the constant of proportionality.
The distance invovled is a very real term. The masses involved are very real terms.

Quote
It also fails to predict much of the motions of the heavens, but that is another matter.
Yes, it is a different matter because we don't know the masses invovled.
That would be like saying gravity fails to predict the motion of plenty of things, because you can't tell me how long it would take for an object I release to hit the ground (because I don't tell you how far it has to fall).
An inability to predict something based upon incomplete information is not a problem for the scientific law.

I am highlighting the distinction
No, you are providing a distinction that does not exist in science.
You are making it up.

Quote
is in contention, not the law.
No, the law itself is as well.
The law of gravitaiton is a scientific law, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't.

Quote
It is a theory that the sky is blue because of diffraction, it is a law that it is blue.
No it isn't.
That could not be further from the truth.

It can't possibly be a law that it is blue, because plenty of time, it is effectively colourless, and some times it is red instead.
And it isn't due to diffraction.

The law is that the atmosphere scatters light, scattering lower wavelength light a greater amount.
The theory is the derivation of that law from electromagnetism applies to individual molecules.

Quote
The law perseveres through all of it
Or it could be completley destroyed, such as by observing the sky being red at sunset, or an object rising instead of falling.

The scientific facts we are evaluating are very narrow, and the "interconnected"-ness you speak of is a foundational part of a narrative mythological fiction
No, it is a key foundation of science, which is why instead of having a bunch of different, completely disconnected ideas, we try to tie them all to simple fundamental laws of nature. As this makes the overal system simpler, even when these laws manifest in a complex manner due to the interconnected nature of reality.

And that applies throughout science.
When something new is discovered, it is a new fundamental law of nature, or is it just a manifestation of one of the existing laws?
And likewise, are what we think of as the fundamental laws actually the fundamental laws, or are they simply manifestations of a more fundamental law.

Quote
IF the world is flat, then everything we know and experience occurs on a flat earth.
Which in no way helps support the idea that Earth is flat.
Because if Earth isn't flat (which it isn't), then everything we know and experience does NOT occur on a flat Earth, nor would it necessarily be possible for it to occur on a flat Earth.

The majority of the things he listed are fundamentally tied to the shape of Earth.
The formation of Earth causes it to be a roughly spherical shape, with this also resulting in a molten core giving rise to a magnetic field, which is dynamic.

Conversely how would a FE form?
Your idea of gravity needs it to exist, already formed, so thigns can then be provided energy so they fall.
Otherwise, they have been given no energy and thus shouldn't fall.
And even if you do make them start falling, without something for them to land on, there is no reason for it to collect and form Earth.

Quote
The solar system and universe are supposed/observed to be anti-isotropically (against prediction and expectation) flat.
How is it against prediction and expectation?

For the universe, that "flat" refers to space being roughly Euclidean. Not it actually forming a flat object.
For the solar system, it again isn't a massive flat object but instead is a system of spherical objects orbitting in roughly the same plane.

Quote
But in any case, looking up to determine what is the opposite direction is unscientific and stupid.
So you claim, with no justifiaction at all.

Quote
The objects we observe (lights in the sky) are presumed far too distant to make any certain determinations as to size/shape/composition.
He specifically referred to the planets, which we can resolve, even sometimes with Earth based telescopes, and watch them rotate to clealry observe their roughly spherical shape.

But now reading more, it seems you are even including them, so it is just more wilful rejection of reality.

Quote
Again, you are simply failing to rationalize your mythology.  The laws of physics do not explain planetary formation
No, you are failing to understand science.
The laws of physics do explain planetary formation.
The key one is the law you hate so much you pretend it isn't a law and instead pretend it is fictional nonsnese with no basis in reality.
But your wilful rejection of reality will not change it.

You can choose to be wilfully ignorant if you want to be, but that doesn't mean we all must be, and that doesn't mean your position is credible when it is based upon that wilful ignorance.

Quote
What we know about magnetic field generation is a MAJOR problem for the presumptive mythology/model.
Why?
We know that a spinning ball of molten metal will produce a magnetic field.
We know that this is not stable and will drift and flip, and our magnetic field has been observed to drift, and there is evidence that it has flipped.

Quote
The "space born doom" thing is little more than fear porn for manipulation purposes.
No, it is science, based upon empirical observations.

Quote
No more pacifier, instead - get more comfortable with honesty.
Follow your own advice. Stop rejecting reality. Accept that there is plentiful evidence for gravitation, including the law of gravitation.


Quote
Everything works the same way if the world is flat.  This is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.
No, so many things would need to be fundametnally different.

Again, like I said before, this is a pathetic excuse to dismiss everything which shows that Earth is round.

The simple reality is that Earth is not flat. And if Earth was flat things would be very different.

For one simple one, if Earth was flat we wouldn't have so many different map projections where the scale varies accross the map.
Instead, the scale of every map would be constant for the entire map, and while you may have maps showing a different portion of the world, overall the maps would be the same other than which portion they choose to show.

The sole reason for all these different map projections is that Earth isn't flat, instead Earth is roughly spherical. That means you cannot perfectly map it to a flat surface without distortion. The different map projections introduce different distortions.
For example, the Mercarter projection, which you only ever have a portion of as the full projection would take infinite room, preserves direction. This causes the scale to increase as you get closer to the poles, due to the curvature of Earth.
This choice of projection, preserving direction, means that you can draw a straight line on the map, with a constant bearing, and then follow that bearing to reach your destination. It will not be the shortest path, but it is the simplest to navigate with.
The other advantage of this, is that the scale is isotropic, so any sufficiently small location on the map is merely a scaled version of reality. But at the large scale there is significant distortion and it is not easy to compare areas on the map at different latitudes.

None of that would be needed if Earth WAS flat.
The fact that it is needed shows Earth IS NOT flat.

And that seems to be something FEers struggle with (at least some).
You cannot simply assume that Earth is flat to pretend everything would work on a FE to pretend that an argument against FE is invalid.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 23, 2021, 09:18:38 PM
@stash

Quote
I'm not sure I follow this bit. If things simply fall because of the input energy used to lift them, why do two differently weighted objects fall at the same rate?

Well, the short answer is - they don't.  In a vacuum they fall close to the same rate, but there is no such thing as vacuum - so they still fall with varying amounts of interaction with the media (density mostly, but terminal velocity and acceleration profile are heavily dependent on shape / drag as well).  Things fall, rise, or neither as described by archimedes' principle.

Quote
Each would have a different input energy used to lift them, I'm assuming meaning they would have a different falling "energy" rate.

This is a major problem for the presumptive model as well.  Inertia of separate objects of varying amounts of matter varies, and yet - magically - gravity always pulls the exact right amount (negotiates varying inertias instantaneously from any distance) - even from a theoretically infinite distance away.

However, yes - things that weigh more take more energy to move/lift and use that same larger energy when falling.  The force they impart when impacting (assuming a theoretical perfect transfer of force with no loss) MUST be exactly equal (of course, lesser in reality due to losses) to the energy used to lift the object.

Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?

There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 10:43:19 PM
Things fall, rise, or neither as described by archimedes' principle.
Archimedes' principle doesn't describe things falling, merely displacing. There is no requirement for it to go down.

This is a major problem for the presumptive model as well.
Which Einstein solved with GR.

magically - gravity always pulls the exact right amount (negotiates varying inertias instantaneously from any distance) - even from a theoretically infinite distance away.
There is no more negotiation involved than with any other force.
The main distinction with this regard is that gravity uses mass rather than charge or the like.

If you take 2 objects with the same mass to charge ratio, the electrostatic force accelerates them the same.
Is that magic as well? Or is it just gravity that is magic?

The force they impart when impacting (assuming a theoretical perfect transfer of force with no loss) MUST be exactly equal (of course, lesser in reality due to losses) to the energy used to lift the object.
You are aware force and energy are 2 different things right?

But if this is true, and you lose energy when lifting and dropping things and the only reason it falls in the first place is that you provided energy to lift it, then by lifting it and dropping it enough you should lose all that energy.

Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?
There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.
How about meteors and other objects from space?
They were never lifted onto Earth.

And with your model, you should be able to dig a deep hole and throw a rock down and have it magically stop part way down, when it reaches the height it was originally at.
Likewise, we shouldn't need to bother about water flooding mines, because that is below where water was originally so it shouldn't fall down there.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Timeisup on January 24, 2021, 01:54:15 PM
@stash

Quote
I'm not sure I follow this bit. If things simply fall because of the input energy used to lift them, why do two differently weighted objects fall at the same rate?

Well, the short answer is - they don't.  In a vacuum they fall close to the same rate, but there is no such thing as vacuum - so they still fall with varying amounts of interaction with the media (density mostly, but terminal velocity and acceleration profile are heavily dependent on shape / drag as well).  Things fall, rise, or neither as described by archimedes' principle.

Quote
Each would have a different input energy used to lift them, I'm assuming meaning they would have a different falling "energy" rate.

This is a major problem for the presumptive model as well.  Inertia of separate objects of varying amounts of matter varies, and yet - magically - gravity always pulls the exact right amount (negotiates varying inertias instantaneously from any distance) - even from a theoretically infinite distance away.

However, yes - things that weigh more take more energy to move/lift and use that same larger energy when falling.  The force they impart when impacting (assuming a theoretical perfect transfer of force with no loss) MUST be exactly equal (of course, lesser in reality due to losses) to the energy used to lift the object.

Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?

There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.

How have you determined, there is a no such thing as a vacuum.
How have you determined objects do not fall at the same rate?
Do you have experimental data to back up your claims?

Itís odd that science would disagree with you on both counts.

How have you been able to verify the conversation of energy?

Some people might think you pick snd choose which of the laws of science to follow based on how they fit with your flat earth belief.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: Platonius21 on January 25, 2021, 07:33:51 AM
Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?

There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.

Here's an experiment even you can do.  Find a rock sitting on the ground. Dig a hole next to it, and then push the rock over the edge of the hole. Watch gravity attract it to the bottom of the hole.

Now if you think that was a fluke, find another rock and do it again. You will get the same result anywhere on the planet. By your reasoning every rock on the planet was somehow lifted into position??
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2021, 12:53:28 PM
Now if you think that was a fluke, find another rock and do it again. You will get the same result anywhere on the planet. By your reasoning every rock on the planet was somehow lifted into position??
I would suggest a slight variation.
If it falls, don't find another rock, dig a deeper hole next to it, and push it into that, and keep going.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 25, 2021, 06:54:12 PM
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
The fact that the accurate maps of Earth require Earth to be a globe, or to have a scale (sometimes anisotropic) that changes based upon location based upon Earth being a sphere, shows that it has a nearly constant positive gaussian curvature.

Still assuming the measurements are there because they "simply must be" eh?

Quote
It allows the possibility of us living on the inside of the sphere.

There are some that argue, and sometimes even measure this.

Quote
If Earth was actually flat, we would have all maps being basically the same, where the only distinction is the location of the cuts to join Earth together (and even that would require Earth to exist in a strange space and otherwise just have the same edge for all maps), and each of these maps would have a constant scale throughout.

There are many unvalidated assumptions baked in to the reasoning above, not the least of which are the accuracy (and existence) of the measurements you need.  Maps are about/for duration and location.  As long as those work for whatever specific use cases we use them for, the rest can be (and always was, historically) wrong.

Quote
And that just changes it from being the distance to the sun must be many times the size of Earth to many times the size of the known regions of Earth.

Possibly, the fact is that we don't know.  The sun can be close too (by "astronomical" standards).

Quote
You mean it shows Earth is round.

Not unless you already believe that in your heart.

Quote
It is only when you try to force Earth to be flat that you have these "wacky" answers.

This is wrong.  Parallax doesn't care much about the discrepancy due to a "bulge" of the earth being there or not (a curved side to the triangle).  When you have the one observer under the sun on the equinox (or where/when we believe that occurs) and another most anywhere else that can see the sun you come up with the 3000 figure.  Parallax does not work for stellar lights.

Quote
No, due to the evidence supporting it.

Then perhaps we should discuss this supposed evidence.

Quote
You make a prediction based upon the hypothesis and then test if that prediction is correct. If it is not, it indicates the hypothesis is wrong.
How else do you plan on testing the hyothesis?

Good question!

A hypothesis only has one purpose, validation (and invalidation, or neither) by experiment.  You do not use a hypothesis to generate a prediction.  The hypothesis IS the prediction you experimentally verify.  It is truly sad how scientifically illiterate we are - even the fundamental definitions known by the vast majority are plainly incorrect.

Quote
Rational discource is not just repeated dismissal of reality.

That's true, but when the topic of discussion IS (or at least heavily involves) the dismissal of reality by your fellow participants - one hardly has much choice now do they?!

Quote
You are the one refusing to recognise the obvious.

I assure you, it merely seems that way.  The reality is the reverse, but it will take time to understand what I'm really saying and for what reason (and to verify earnesty/intent)

Quote
There are many ways to determine the shape of an object. Direct measurements of the object are not the only way.

Stop adding "direct" so you have a nonsense "out".  I didn't add "direct", why did you?  Measurement is the only way to determine the shape of an object in physical reality (empirical science).  Direct measurement of the object is always preferred to inferential means, though there is no reason to get bogged down in irrelevant pedantry/semantics over that fact (through creative/biased interpretation of "direct" and "inferential")

Quote
If you are happy with indirect measurements being included then that includes measuring the angle between Earth and a star (or other celestial object).

The measures of the angles are real, yes.  Their interpretation is the trouble.  These are no substitute for actual measurements of distance and shape, and it is insane to think they are.
 
Quote
These indirect measurements allow you to make a model which produce these measurements.

Only with blind faith.  Without it, the unvalidated assumptions required for the interpretation do not bare critical scrutiny.

Quote
By "measurement of an object" I take it to mean directly measuring the physical object. Not an indirect measurement.

I did not specify intentionally.  To determine the shape of an object in reality, you have to measure it.  If you want good accuracy and reliability, you need to do so rigorously and repeatedly.  The most accurate and reliable measurements are almost always direct.


Quote
You claim a model has no place in science, and constructing models and comparing them with reality cannot allow to determine the shape of an object.

True.  Only measurement determines the shape of the object.  Playing with models is not involved, or helpful.

Quote
Why? Because they show Earth is roughly spherical and you don't like that?

No - because they're so poorly produced!  Even worse than usual!

Quote
Again, you just dismiss the evidence with no justification.

You dismiss the justifications :(. But we will keep trying, as long as you wish it.

Quote
But why must everything be done at the level of the indivudal?

It doesn't, but the verification of facts before accepting them as true falls on the individual alone.  It is a shamefully neglected duty, and explains much of the troubles we see in the world.

Quote
Our knowledge is built by cooperation, not by claiming that everyone is lying and trying to hide the truth.

That is in NO WAY my claim (the latter).  The former very much is!  I am glad to see it is yours as well.

Quote
You mean level.

Yes! That too, thanks for reminding me!

Quote
So the better option would be calm water.

It introduces way too many problems that the frozen solves/avoid.  Even if you have to go further in distance to get a measurement, EVERYTHING is harder over water and this is doubly true when it is wet.

Quote
But any measurement such as this will have a degree of uncertainty.

All measurements do, which is why it is best to use directly verified ones whenever possible.

Quote
And that means you can't just measure a small bit of water in a sink.

You can start there though! And this is how the laws of hydrostatics were established originally.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 25, 2021, 06:54:45 PM
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
And you cannot assume the water will be flat to use that as a reference.

Of course you can, but you wouldn't - due to indoctrination/belief.

Quote
You also can't use something like a piece of string for your level because it bows, and typically the string will bow more than Earth curves.

There are ways to address that, but frozen is better - trust me.

Quote
But another method, far less direct, is to measure the angle to a celestial object. Do this for multiple locations and use that to determine the shape of Earth.

Only with many unvalidated assumptions.  Looking up to determine what is down beneath you is both unscientific and stupid no matter how many times you repeat it is reasonable.

Quote
And it has been. Maybe not in the way you want it to be, but it has been measured.

No, it hasn't been and measuring it would violate established hydrostatic laws.  One of the reasons we know it hasn't been measured is that no one knows who measured it, how, or when.  It has been perpetually calculated and inferred from faulty assumption.  Never once measured.  Things MUST be measured in order to BECOME a part of empericism.

Quote
What natural law?

There are a few, but the one most central to our discussion is that water's surface (of non-miniscule surface area / volume, and under natural conditions) at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal.  This is a trivially demonstrated natural law that has stood unchallenged for centuries in hydrostatics.  The ONLY way to refute natural law is through repeated measurement to the contrary.  BECAUSE there exists no measurement to the contrary, this law of hydrostatics stands today as it did centuries ago and for the exact same reasons.

Quote
They sure seem to. And it is only be having nature itself conspire to make Earth appear to be round that they don't.

Humans always feel that way (throughout history).  Nature didn't conspire to make you stupid and wrong, you just are frequently - like all that came before you, scientist or not.

Many times in human history, the scientific (and otherwise) "truths held self evident" are discarded / reversed / overturned and many of those people undoubtedly felt the exact same way.  Why did nature conspire to confuse us so?  Why does nature guard her secrets so jealously?  We may never know.

Quote
Again, you not wanting it to exist doesn't mean it wont exist.
There is plenty of evidence for it.

You're still confused about the terminology.  Let's try again.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces, with one caveat.

The caveat is called natural law.  Natural law, as I've said before, is much like scientific "bedrock".  It is established only through observation.  It is, "what is" in science in terms of the phenomena that we observe and experience consistently.

The natural law of gravity is very old.  Thousands of years.  Newton was not involved.

The natural law of gravity; the repeated and consistent observation that material objects, when lifted, tend to fall once allowed to do so.

THAT is the law.  Much like the sky being blue, it is consistently observed and measurable/measured.  No matter how that law is represented mathematically - often including/involving the contemporary scientific theory - the underlying natural/scientific law remains unchanged.  Are you following?

Quote
I notice you never responed to the fact that even he called it an experiment.

That's because neither he nor the reverend ever did, but why bother to chime in just to contradict you?

Quote
So you are saying that they measured something that is unmeasurable.

Lol, "that's the ticket"!  They measured something.  That something is real.  It is a real attraction between two brass/lead weights.  It is an interesting observation, and well worth further study!

Quote
They measured something that is very real and measurable.

Yes, and it was their religious faith that told them WHAT it was they were measuring.  They didn't let science or the scientific method get in their way! Of course, this is a reverend we are talking about.

Quote
Again, you wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

It really and truly doesn't exist.  Every physicist for the past several hundred years has been well aware of this.

Quote
No, it will take you justifying your claims.

I must leave that evaluation to you.  All I can do is discuss my findings and share my evidence/reasonings. 

Quote
or point out an actual logical problem with it.

I've already done that repeatedly, and again - any physics knowledgable person you ask will have plenty of problems with gravitation to discuss.  Take your pick!  One I mentioned was the necessity for faster than light information transfer in order to negotiate accelerating (potentially) infinitely distant objects with varying inertias.  Another was its intractability.  The best is the utter lack of any empirical/scientific/experimental support for the actual existence of gravitation in any way (including definition, in case someone did ever want to bother looking for the cause of gravity)
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:02:33 AM
Still assuming the measurements are there because they "simply must be" eh?
No, just not delusionally claiming they can't possibly be there.
You are free to go take a map and show it is wrong, making sure you note the distortion involved in the projection.

Otherwise maps of Earth quite conclusively show it is a sphere.

Quote
Quote
If Earth was actually flat, we would have all maps being basically the same, where the only distinction is the location of the cuts to join Earth together (and even that would require Earth to exist in a strange space and otherwise just have the same edge for all maps), and each of these maps would have a constant scale throughout.
There are many unvalidated assumptions baked in to the reasoning above
And of course, you can't provide any of them and instead just pretend the measurements are fake.
In that case you go measure it yourself. Come back when you can produce a flat map of Earth with a constant scale.

Quote
the rest can be (and always was, historically) wrong.
You not understanding the distortion inherent in the projection does not make them wrong.

Quote
Possibly, the fact is that we don't know.  The sun can be close too (by "astronomical" standards).
Close by astronomical standards, not by the size of the known region of Earth.
150 million km is "close" by astronomical standards where the next nereast star is over 4 light years away, the galaxy is over 100 thousand light years across, and the nearest galaxy is over a million light years away.

But none of that changes the fact that the sun is far away compared to the size of the known region of Earth.
None of it changes the argument.

Quote
Quote
You mean it shows Earth is round.
Not unless you already believe that in your heart.
No, only if you don't hate the idea of a round Earth that causes you to reject everything that shows it is.
It requires no assumptions about the shape of Earth.
With only 2 measurements the problem is unconstrained, but with plenty more, the problem is constrained and shows that these lights in the sky are very far away and Earth is round.

But instead of accept that, you just dismiss it all and pretend it can't work because it shows Earth is round.

Quote
Quote
It is only when you try to force Earth to be flat that you have these "wacky" answers.
This is wrong.
No, it is entirely correct.
You get massive discrepancies when you pretend Earth is flat, due to the simple fact that Earth isn't flat.

Quote
you come up with the 3000 figure.  Parallax does not work for stellar lights.
Again, only when you falsely assume Earth is flat.
It works just fine when you don't make that assumption.
But calculating the distance to a known object that far away requires very precise measurements.

Quote
Then perhaps we should discuss this supposed evidence.
I already have, and you continually dismiss it as fake.

Quote
Quote
You make a prediction based upon the hypothesis and then test if that prediction is correct. If it is not, it indicates the hypothesis is wrong.
How else do you plan on testing the hyothesis?
Good question!

A hypothesis only has one purpose, validation (and invalidation, or neither) by experiment.  You do not use a hypothesis to generate a prediction.  The hypothesis IS the prediction you experimentally verify.  It is truly sad how scientifically illiterate we are - even the fundamental definitions known by the vast majority are plainly incorrect.
Have you ever stopped to consider if you are the scientifically illiterate one? Especially when you are basically everyone other than you is wrong?
That typically indicates that you are the one who is wrong.

Quote
That's true, but when the topic of discussion IS (or at least heavily involves) the dismissal of reality by your fellow participants - one hardly has much choice now do they?!
Sure they do. I choose not to reject reality. Why do you choose to reject it?

Quote
Stop adding "direct" so you have a nonsense "out".  I didn't add "direct", why did you?
Because that is the only logical interpretation of your initial claim.

Especially when you claim that looking elsewhere is stupid (for an indirect measurement) is stupid.

Quote
These are no substitute for actual measurements of distance and shape
And why don't you replace "actual" with what you really mean "DIRECT"

Quote
The most accurate and reliable measurements are almost always direct.
I have already explained how that is false. Why do you just repeat the same false statement?

Quote
Quote
You claim a model has no place in science, and constructing models and comparing them with reality cannot allow to determine the shape of an object.
True.
No, blatantly false. As already explained repeatedly.

Quote
No - because they're so poorly produced!  Even worse than usual!
How so?
It seems you are just looking for any excuse you can use to dismiss them without directly saying what the real reason is, because they show you are wrong.

Quote
You dismiss the justifications
No I don't.

Quote
Quote
But why must everything be done at the level of the indivudal?
It doesn't
Then why pretend by dismissing all the evidence that shows you are wrong?
That sure seems to be acting like it must be.
And no, your semantic BS or pretending it is just "verification" that needs to be done doesn't save you. That is still saying it must all be done by the individual.

Quote
Quote
Our knowledge is built by cooperation, not by claiming that everyone is lying and trying to hide the truth.
That is in NO WAY my claim
It sure seems to be.
You dismiss all the evidence that has been gathered by so many people and instead just claim it is all fake.

Quote
Yes! That too, thanks for reminding me!
No, not "that too" It is level, not FLAT!
And if you did really mean it that way, that would be entirely circular reasoning as you are saying only the measurement of a flat object would be valid to show Earth is flat, but that only makes sense with the false assumption that Earth is flat.

Quote
It introduces way too many problems that the frozen solves/avoid.
And the frozen version introduces way too many problems that the liquid avoids.

Quote
All measurements do, which is why it is best to use directly verified ones whenever possible.
No, it isn't. Direct ones can have even greater levels of uncertainty.

Quote
Quote
And that means you can't just measure a small bit of water in a sink.
You can start there though!
Not if your goal is trying to see if Earth is flat or round, not unless you have an amazingly accurate instrument that can measure to roughly the size of the atom over that short distance.

That is just the kind of nonsense FEers use to pretend there is no curve.
They can't detect the curve over such a short distance due to the relatively massive uncertainty in the experiment, so they falsely conclude their must be no curve.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:04:16 AM
Quote
And you cannot assume the water will be flat to use that as a reference.
Of course you can
No, you can't.
Do you notice what you are doing now?
You are assuming Earth is flat, to make a measurement which is based upon this assumption, where you are assuming the surface of the water is flat, to then falsely conclude that Earth is flat.

So no, my alleged "indoctrination" (and there you go with more pathetic insults) has nothing to do with it.
Instead it is entirely to do with me trying my best to be an honest, logical individual.

Notice the significant contrast where you seem to just be trying to do whatever you can to pretend Earth is flat, including suggesting an experimental method that usees the assumption that Earth is flat to pretend Earth is flat. And likewise, with your prior use of falsely assuming Earth is flat to pretend that stars in the light magically make no sense, and falsely assuming Earth is flat to pretend that everything observed in reality is consistent with a flat Earth.

Quote
Only with many unvalidated assumptions.
Stop just repeating the same lie.

The only "assumption" is that light doesn't magically bend to pretend Earth is round.

Quote
Looking up to determine what is down beneath you is both unscientific and stupid no matter how many times you repeat it is reasonable.
Again, the truth could not be further from that garabge.
No matter how many times you repeat the same lie, it will not make it stupid or unscientific.
And again, that is saying indirect measurement is stupid and unscientific.

If you want to claim it is, and have any credibility, you will need to substantiate that claim.

Quote
No, it hasn't been and measuring it would violate established hydrostatic laws.
No, it would violate your false assumptions, as I already explained.
It has been measured, and doesn't violate any laws.

Again, the surface of water is level, not flat. Noting that level in this context means an equipotential surface. This is easily seen with a water droplet.
They clearly arent' flat. So your claim is pure BS.


Quote
There are a few, but the one most central to our discussion is that water's surface (of non-miniscule surface area / volume, and under natural conditions) at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal.
That is not a natural law. Instead, it is an outright lie promoted by FEers to pretend Earth couldn't possibly be round.

Quote
This is a trivially demonstrated natural law
You mean it is trivial to refute, as I have already done.

Quote
Nature didn't conspire to make you stupid and wrong, you just are frequently
And there you go with more pathetic insults.
I'm not the stupid one here.

Grow up.

Quote
You're still confused about the terminology.
Again, that seems to be you.
Stop just repeating the same refuted BS and try to justify it.

Quote
The natural law of gravity; the repeated and consistent observation that material objects, when lifted, tend to fall once allowed to do so.
Again, easily disproven by a helium filled balloon.
You are wrong. Deal with it.

And don't worry. We can lift the helium out of a helium tank, which doens't float.

The natural law is the universal law of gravitation.
Again, you not wanting it to be a law, because you hate it because it means you are wrong about the shape of Earth doesn't magically change reality. It just means you are knowingly lying.

Quote
That's because neither he nor the reverend ever did
I already showed that was BS.
The title of the paper, written by him, clearly showed that called it an experiment.
All you are doing is wilfully rejecting relaity and promoting a pure fantasy.

Quote
Lol, "that's the ticket"!  They measured something.  That something is real.
That something is gravitation.

Quote
It really and truly doesn't exist.
Again, repeating the same lie wont make it true.

Quote
All I can do is discuss my findings and share my evidence/reasonings.
So far your only reasoning appears to be "EARTH MUST BE FLAT! ANYTHING THAT SAYS OTHERWISE IS WRONG AND UNSCIENTIFIC AND FAKE AND FICTION!!!!"

Quote
Quote
or point out an actual logical problem with it.
I've already done that repeatedly
No, you haven't.

Like I said, the closest you came to that was claiming a paradox, which was merley just you not knowing.
I explained why it isn't a pardox and explained what gravity predicts. You then said nothing further on it.

Quote
One I mentioned was the necessity for faster than light information transfer
So you have no idea what you are talking about. Got it.
There is no faster than light information transfer.
Especially considering LIGO proved that it doesn't travel at the speed of light via observations of gravitational waves.
You aren't showing any problem with gravity. You just showing a problem with your strawman of it.

And like I said before, why only attack gravity for this?
If you truly thought this nonsense, you would claim it applies for all the fundamental forces and discard them all. But it seems that because they don't indicate Earth should be round you are happy with them.

Quote
The best is the utter lack of any empirical/scientific/experimental support for the actual existence of gravitation in any way
Why is your wilful ignorance in any way a problem for gravitation?
Again, you not liking something and watning to pretend it isn't real, doesn't magically mean it isn't real.
It just means you are living in a fantasy.

Perhaps you can come back to reality at some point?
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: jack44556677 on January 26, 2021, 01:22:26 AM
@timeisup

Quote
How have you determined, there is a no such thing as a vacuum.

Real world experience, as well as historical and scientific study.  The ancients galvanized this truth in the phrase nequaquam vacuum - poetically translated, nature abhors a vacuum.  The study of vacuums and the apparatus that generate them is what leads to the conclusion that absolute vacuum is not attainable in reality.  Because of this generally accepted scientific fact, it is simple deduction from archimedes principle that buoyant force is always still in play - and the rates of fall must vary as a result (even if they are beyond our precision to empirically verify).

Quote
How have you determined objects do not fall at the same rate?

Archimedes principle is well established and verified over the past 2+ millenia.

Quote
Do you have experimental data to back up your claims?

Absolutely.  Archimedes' principle is experimentally validatable and validated.

Quote
Itís odd that science would disagree with you on both counts.

Science is not a person (it can't disagree), and the laws and observations I'm referencing are fundamental and without contest.  Most haven't given it adequate thought.  I'm sure many have deduced it before.

Quote
How have you been able to verify the conversation of energy?

Empirically.  This is something that has been established by other scientists (and most students) and is somewhat routinely verified.

Quote
Some people might think you pick snd choose which of the laws of science to follow based on how they fit with your flat earth belief.

Not the ones that read what I write and take the time to learn my perspective! I personally have no flat (or round or any other shape) earth belief, and what you see as "picking and choosing" is in fact just using what is available.  One of the most important parts of science is criticism, and I decry out of duty and the love of science.  The ones that love science the most are by far the most critical of it, because that is how refinement and progress occur historically.
Title: Re: The case for Gravity and UA
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 01:52:44 PM
The study of vacuums and the apparatus that generate them is what leads to the conclusion that absolute vacuum is not attainable in reality.
So you are fine throwing in the term "absolute" by hate me putting in "direct"?
Vacuums exist. It is just perfect ones that don't.

Because of this generally accepted scientific fact, it is simple deduction from archimedes principle that buoyant force is always still in play
However it is quite easy to see that that different will be negligible.

and the rates of fall must vary as a result
No, it doesn't.
Not until you actually have an explanation for why things fall and a way to determine what rate they should fall at.
Only if you accept gravitation do you have what you need.
But you reject that, and even reject the concept of mass.

Archimedes principle is well established and verified over the past 2+ millenia.
And tells you nothing about how quickly objects fall.

Quote
How have you been able to verify the conversation of energy?
Empirically.
So how did you establish that the energy was converted into gravitational potential energy (especially as you reject gravitation) rather than just disappearing?
Are you sure this isn't just a way to try to preserve a "fictional" concept of the conservation of energy?

Quote
Some people might think you pick snd choose which of the laws of science to follow based on how they fit with your flat earth belief.
Not the ones that read what I write and take the time to learn my perspective!
No, the more that I read what you write, the more it shows that you are merely rejecting all science that shows Earth is round, while you are happy to accept the rest so you can pretend your position is scientific.
You are even happy to accept that which is not science.

what you see as "picking and choosing" is in fact just using what is available.
No, it is outright rejecting available things which show Earth is round.

The ones that love science the most are by far the most critical of it, because that is how refinement and progress occur historically.
Being critical of it doesn't mean dismissing it as fiction or fake or unrealistic like you have been doing.
And they don't do it in an extremely dishonest way of just being extremely critical of something they don't like or which shows something they don't like.