Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - zeroply

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
You should probably also not use things like cars, computers, televisions, or pretty much anything invented post-1849.
Just a thought.
The fact that you often reject the existence of many scientific/technological realities is what leads me to believe such.
I mean, who's to say car companies and electronics manufacturers aren't part of the conspiracy?
Do not say I'm being irrational.
I am one that chooses to embrace the empirical rather than think everyone's out to fool me.

Raymond Damadian who invented NMR, and thus the MRI machine, is a young earth creationist who believes that the earth was literally created in 6 days. So does this mean that when you are admitted to the hospital next, you will refuse any MRI scans on conscientious grounds?

Oh dear.

Raymond Damadian didn't invent NMR, the concept and technology behind NMR was first implemented two years before he was born. Numerous scientists and Nobel prizes were given out in this field before he even entered college.

His work was concerned with the usage of NMR in identifying tumours which kicked off research by multiple scientists. His own method required full body scans which turned out to be un-feasible whereas other researchers didn't. This is why his design is not the one that is used in hospitals today. He contributed to the technology, but he was not the sole 'inventor'.

My point was that MRI would not exist without Raymond Damadian, therefore when you go to a hospital and get an MRI done, you are benefiting from his work. I meant NMR within the hospital context. While there is dispute over who should get credit, partly because Damadian has other controversial views, I think it's generally accepted that MRI wouldn't have happened if not for him.

2
You should probably also not use things like cars, computers, televisions, or pretty much anything invented post-1849.
Just a thought.
The fact that you often reject the existence of many scientific/technological realities is what leads me to believe such.
I mean, who's to say car companies and electronics manufacturers aren't part of the conspiracy?
Do not say I'm being irrational.
I am one that chooses to embrace the empirical rather than think everyone's out to fool me.

Raymond Damadian who invented NMR, and thus the MRI machine, is a young earth creationist who believes that the earth was literally created in 6 days. So does this mean that when you are admitted to the hospital next, you will refuse any MRI scans on conscientious grounds?

3
I am curious to know what FE'ers believe what major events actually happened. Example. 911, Columbia and Challenge disaster, Chernobyl, attack on Baghdad, etc..

My father said that the US government back in the day intentionally withheld syphilis treatment from black men, then lied about it whenever asked. I know you probably don't believe that the government is capable of a conspiracy and dishonesty on that scale, but I think that they covered up the whole syphilis thing.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone ever measured Earth's circumference?
« on: December 13, 2012, 08:30:36 PM »
I'm not on about the Greek who looked down a well and saw the sun or shadows here and there.
I want to know if anyone has ever actually measured the Earth's circumference by normal means, whether it be a plane or whatever, where the actual starting point is dead centre back to the exact place.

Also, how does anyone know which is dead centre on the Earth to which they can take this measurement if there has ever been one?

Excellent question. I did some research, and you are right - no one has actually measured the "circumference" by direct means It's always by calculations removed by the third of fourth degree. Yes, I know what you're about to say - that's a tad suspicious.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« on: December 23, 2010, 09:50:57 AM »
Isn't itchi right? Looking at celestial bodies is not the same as looking at land on a flat Earth, even from oceans.

It doesn't explain sinking ship, though.

"Flat" doesn't mean "geometric plane". Even when calm, the water surface will have natural peaks and valleys. As the ship moves further from shore, the odds increase that there are peaks in the water high enough to obstruct the view.

Another example - in a kitchen with linoleum floor, put a penny at one end. Then press your head to the floor at the other end. By simple geometry, you should be able to see the edge of the penny. But in reality that won't happen due to imperfections in the surface.

Then you would see the ship disappear and reappear.

If w1, w2, w3, ... , wn are the peak heights of the waves in between the ship and shore, then max(wi) would be the effective height of the visual obstruction. But if {wi} has a normal distribution as would be expected, then as n increases, there would be more waves close to that maximum height, so that max(wi) would not vary greatly.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« on: December 22, 2010, 02:37:26 PM »
Isn't itchi right? Looking at celestial bodies is not the same as looking at land on a flat Earth, even from oceans.

It doesn't explain sinking ship, though.

"Flat" doesn't mean "geometric plane". Even when calm, the water surface will have natural peaks and valleys. As the ship moves further from shore, the odds increase that there are peaks in the water high enough to obstruct the view.

Another example - in a kitchen with linoleum floor, put a penny at one end. Then press your head to the floor at the other end. By simple geometry, you should be able to see the edge of the penny. But in reality that won't happen due to imperfections in the surface.

7
According to RE theory, the entire universe started from the Big Bang, and in the initial microseconds all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny volume.

However, this would violate the Heisenberg uncertainly principle, since with a constrained volume like that it would be possible to know an individual particle's position and velocity quite precisely.

Therefore, either modern quantum mechanics is severely flawed, or the universe was never that small to begin with.


in theory the mass was concentrated
still had a lot of space to move around in though

do you understand Heisenburg's uncertainty prinicple or are you just regurgitating something you've read?
the product of the momentum and the location of a particle are equal to planck's constant over 2pi

so we know that all the mass is concentrated in a very  very very very small space, what is in effect a singularity,   if the delta-x term goes to zero, then the delta-p term must go infinite to compensate, so you get all the particles moving with a high spped.  in essence a big bang

what is not holding up here?


But with that many particles in that small a space, they would have to be moving faster than light for the uncertainty principle to work. I'm not talking about while the universe was a singularity, but very shortly afterwards. Even when the universe was the size of a basketball, the sheer amount of matter compressed into that area would not give particles very much room to move.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts in zero gravity
« on: March 13, 2009, 12:02:21 PM »
Like I said earlier, zero g is easily simulated with modern CGI.

And this CGI has been around since the 60's?

Didn't 2001 have pretty convincing zero-G effects? That was from the 60s...

That was using optical printing though...not CGI.

Well - however they faked the moon landing, they were probably using the same technology in the 60s and 70s. Nowadays you can do zero-G with the modern methods much more easily.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts in zero gravity
« on: March 13, 2009, 07:59:47 AM »
Like I said earlier, zero g is easily simulated with modern CGI.

And this CGI has been around since the 60's?

Didn't 2001 have pretty convincing zero-G effects? That was from the 60s...

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational waves
« on: March 12, 2009, 12:44:02 PM »
Let's step into a hypothetical situation, and pretend that gravitational waves have been detected. While these waves have yet to been detected, there are stations/research facilities set up around the world trying to record/observe these waves, but are still believed to exist.

Now, let's just say that they have been detected, and the scientific community accepts them as a fact. How would the FE theory absorb this new idea?

Some quick info on gravitational waves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves

Well, shouldn't the fact that all these people around the world are looking, and no one has found anything, tell us something?

It seems more likely that gravitational waves don't exist, and that's the obvious reason they're not being detected. There were many scientists waiting for the confirmation of the existence of aether a while back.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Something for RE believers to try to explain...
« on: March 12, 2009, 12:36:05 PM »
According to RE theory, the entire universe started from the Big Bang, and in the initial microseconds all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny volume.

However, this would violate the Heisenberg uncertainly principle, since with a constrained volume like that it would be possible to know an individual particle's position and velocity quite precisely.

Therefore, either modern quantum mechanics is severely flawed, or the universe was never that small to begin with.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts in zero gravity
« on: March 11, 2009, 07:44:06 AM »
I'm looking forward to an explanation about the 0 gravity (astronauts and objects "floating") while astronauts "are not supposed to be in orbit" ?



These videos are usually shot in planes. The plan dives at 9.8m/s^2, which counteracts the upward motion of the earth at 9.8m/s^2, and thus there is no gravity.

The fact that "gravity" can be canceled out by acceleration is compelling evidence for FET.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof that our planet is round.
« on: March 06, 2009, 10:41:11 AM »
Here?s a much, much simpler proof, that?s easy to implement, and can readily convince the most obtuse person. If you?re on the east coast, call someone on the west coast just after sunset. If you?re on the west coast, do the opposite, call someone on the east coast three hours before sunset. Hand over the phone to the ?round earth unbeliever? telling him to ask the person at the other end of the line to describe precisely where the sun is. What?s that? The ?round earth unbeliever? sees the sun at one place with respect to the horizontal ground, while the person he is talking to sees it completely elsewhere (while still on horizontal ground). Conclusion? The two surfaces of ground are not parallel. Actually, they?re 45 degrees apart!


But you won't have anything to say about that, you will just ask what I am doing back here.

Have you even read the FAQ? I mean, like any of it? Your experiment is assuming a certain distance between the sun and the Earth. I can call someone across town and compare the location of the Goodyear blimp that's overhead with them, it's not the curvature of the Earth that gives us different readings but the simple fact that the angle to the blimp is different for each of us.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jury Nullification
« on: March 06, 2009, 09:52:15 AM »
ragnarr, all this might have made sense in the 20th century, but it's rather archaic now.

The final arbiter in the modern U. S. is the media. As an individual, you have very little power. You can wake up tomorrow in Guantanamo with battery cables attached to your nipples. If you never see a jury, how is jury nullification going to help you? If Congress doesn't know you exist, how are they supposed to react? If you're not allowed access to the legal system, how is anyone going to assert a habeus corpus right?

All this "checks and balances" is rubbish. My nephew just got into trouble after asking during civics class about "signing statements" that Bush made, and wasn't that directly against what the teacher was saying? Apparently they're not supposed to be discussing that because it distorts the rosy view that kids are supposed to have of how government works.



15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why would only....
« on: March 06, 2009, 07:30:29 AM »
another question. if the earth is accelerating how come it can't catch up to a shuttle those first few seconds of lift off?

Imagine that you're driving your Chevy (or Toyota if you're a liberal) at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on. They still work right?

It's just like that.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I challenge you to change my mind
« on: March 05, 2009, 09:19:37 AM »
After analysis of your writing style for spelling accuracy and grammar, it appears that you consumed approximately a fifth of vodka between starting your paragraph and ending it.

Either you write really, really slow or you drink really, really fast. I am intrigued and must ask which one it is.

17
The round earth theory: a conspiracy that the government has been hiding the fact that the earth is flat for years. This theory would cost an extreme amount of money and serves basically no purpose. the reason is "unknown" to why they would do this.

Religion: An extremely cheap and easy way to gain control and power over billions of people. possibly the best scare tactic ever. A great way to manipulate people.

What lie do you think makes more sense to keep alive; the round earth theory, or religion?

Is this one of those trick questions like "would you rather sleep with a 12 year old girl or 12 year old boy"?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: March 01, 2009, 11:17:30 PM »
Since FE has only the presence of the same field, there is no delta and no dilation (Both clocks run at the same rate.).

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong here.  Are you saying that you don't believe that accelerated reference frames experience time dilation?  An accelerated reference frame such as in the relativistic rocket thought experiment would cause time to dilate perpendicular to the plane of force in the same manner as a gravitational field without the longitudinal tidal forces.
No, I argue that a uniform gravitational field does not cause time dilation regardless of the elevation. It's uniform. Time runs at the same rate everywhere (unless there's some other variation). Do other variations cause time dilation? Of course.

I'm not sure about this. From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation )

"In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field ? such as in proximity to a planet ? are found to be running slower."

So I'm not understanding what you mean by "uniform" in this context. If the gravitational potential is different the clocks should run at different rates - so elevation alone will make a difference.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: March 01, 2009, 11:03:01 AM »

Too much whining, too few results. If you want to use Laplace, just do it! If you want to show us how to do it, just show us how you did it.

You still try to explain away the mountain of results that are already shown by arguing against the use of the third law of Newton, which is exactly what you do when you dismiss the simple discipline of Statics. But you are not even saying why you do not like it, just that it is learned in tenth grade. (Edit: and that it is meant for bridges, not for blocks; how on Earth the third law of Newton (sum of forces = zero in isolated systems) get banned from blocks if they are big?)


Your "mountain of results" is more like a pile of the stinky. I've already shown that your calculation doesn't work. You have not come up with any problems in my counterexample, besides some illiterate rambling about planes. And you're still trying to use methods from a high school mechanics textbook to calculate the gravitational forces acting on a planet. Sorry... no-go.

You don't "use Laplace". If you had any understanding of this area, you would realize that after Laplace vector fields were used for these types of calculations rather than forces between individual objects. I am sure that if you encountered a massive suspension bridge floating in space, you would be quite qualfied to calculate the stress loads. But your methods are just rubbish when applied here.

Also, if you extend your memory more than a few days back, you were the one who came up with the claim that the disk in question would not hold its shape. That means it's on you to prove it. Just because you're incompetent at physics and math doesn't put the burden onto me.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 28, 2009, 09:37:19 AM »
Think of a block/sheet that's 6e12km x 6e12km x 1mm. Now if you do your calculation, and consider two blocks of size 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.8mm and 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.2mm respectively, the gravitational force from your calculations would be enormous.

So according to your logic, this huge sheet should crumble into a ball instead of maintaining it's shape. This is simply not intuitive.
Now I get what has been bothering me with this counterexample: the example is fine as long as you assume that the two sheets are totally rigid, so much so that the attraction between the sheets at one point is affected by the gravitational pull from metal that is millons of kilometers away. In reality, only the metal from a few centimeters away has even a chance of contributing to the pressure in a certain point, since any force from a longer distance will just bend the sheet. Do you even know what a 0.8 mm thick sheet of lead looks like? It has about the consistency of paper.

Also, the force required to crumble your sheet has to be in a longitudinal direction. The force of one sheet against the other is orthogonal to the one you need.

You really should read any book on Statics, even if you think dismissively of the discipline without the benefit of knowing it. You would learn that you can you can assume a system is static and then find out that the forces are too big to make your system with any material available, but you cannot do the opposite. In maths (assuming you do have the title you say you have) this is called proof by contradiction. You would have found out what your "normal" case means: a case where the minimum requirements needed for your "example" are met by the materials used.

I'm using an extreme example to illustrate that you can't assume the gravity on an arbitrarily shaped body reacts similarly to that on a sphere. With a really flat sheet, as you pointed out, you have to look at a completely different direction. In my cuboid, which is somewhere between the sheet and a cube, you'd have something in the middle - so you really can't just use common sense.

Similarly, you can't assume that the pressure on an interior point is determined by a vector normal to the surface. That only works on a spherically symmetric object.

Last time I've taken static mechanics was in 10th grade, so it's been a while. It's great for calculating stress loads on bridges. It is NOT meant to be used on astronomical calculations. If you don't believe me, show your calculation to your teacher and see what he/she says. The odds are you will be pointed to a vector field methodology, since that's how it's been done since Laplace.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 27, 2009, 03:21:55 PM »

The pressure on any object in a solid, liquid or gas is the weight of the column of matter that is directly above that place divided by the horizontal cross section of that object.

This only applies if the gravitational vectors are pointing straight down. In a "normal" setting that can be safely assumed, but not in a general case. Without calculating the vector field, you cannot use any of the formulas that would apply in day to day usage.

For example, consider a huge disk radius 10,000km and thickness 500km. The pressure calculation would not be a linear function of depth as you are thinking, especially not at the edges.

Additionally, it is not sufficient to calculate pressure at the very center. The center IS a sphere already - picture a sphere embedded in the block. It's points outside that sphere that need to be addressed. Obviously a solid sphere of lead is possible, even if the interior is hot enough to be liquid. We have to look at points where the gravitational force is acting as a shear force. You might be able to consider the corners of the cube as huge mountains on a central sphere, but we're not looking at the very interior points.

My idea with the breakdown was to calculate the force vector on each little block, and then look at blocks where the force vector would be enough (or not) to deform the material.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 27, 2009, 06:38:36 AM »
If someone gives me the integral i'm happy to try and solve it. I say that knowing full well im away this weekend, but I do know integral.wolfram.com.

I'm still at the stage of where I'm setting it up. If I get it into some sort of reasonable closed form I'll post it up. I'm having trouble because it doesn't lend itself to a polar expression. Couldn't find anything in a hasty Google search either.

I guess you could just represent the cuboid as a 3-array of 100m cubes in Python and brute force the calculation based on summing vectors from each COG. If you made the cubes small enough that should be very accurate. I'm hoping for a general expression though so I'm going to take another whack at it.

Also, in my counterexample, all the long measurements should be 6e13km, I accidentally put down 6e12km from a previous draft for the complete block.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 26, 2009, 10:35:48 PM »
And another P.S.:

Please study vectors again. Vectors are not lines between two points. And neither are the vector fields.

I've actually got a degree in math, so I think I've stumbled upon the whole "vectors" thing before.

Are you actually familiar with calculus, or are is high school mechanical engineering (based on textbook) as far as you've gotten so far?

You still haven't shown any examples of people calculating gravitational forces using a similar model. I'm suspecting that you have a hammer and everything is starting to look like a nail. You can't use the "truck weighing 4000lbs is 80ft from one end of the bridge" approach to solving all physics problems, you know?
If you have a degree in maths, please, please, please just write the integrals and stop whining. It will take just 5 minutes and you will not look stupid when I decide to work on them and beat you to it.

I have been trying to understand the "vector between the two points" you described and it makes no sense. A force vector is the combination of a 3-dimensional position and a 3-dimensional direction and strength. There is no two points.

And you have not shown any maths at all, not even a single number. Why does a mathematician elude every occasion to use maths to make his point?

It's not a simple problem. Obviously you haven't hit calculus yet because if you had taken a shot at it you would have seen it's not a "5 minute" integral. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Put your money where your mouth is and post an equation for the gravitational vector field of a cuboid if you think it's so trivial.

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous your method is. Consider this simple counterexample:

Think of a block/sheet that's 6e12km x 6e12km x 1mm. Now if you do your calculation, and consider two blocks of size 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.8mm and 6e13km x 6e13km x 0.2mm respectively, the gravitational force from your calculations would be enormous.

So according to your logic, this huge sheet should crumble into a ball instead of maintaining it's shape. This is simply not intuitive.

Again, I freely admit I cannot come up with a reasonable equation in 5 minutes. Let's see what you can do.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 26, 2009, 02:46:04 PM »

So, now you have a plan. That is a very good step in the right direction.

But again you are trying to find the forces on the top of the block instead of looking at the pressures inside. What you are doing is the same as looking at the forces on a brick on top of the Empire State Building and trying to determine whether the building will crumble. Right now I can tell you that the forces on the edge of your 6000x6000x1000 kilometer block are of about 3 Newtons for every kilogram of edge you decide to observe and that the block will not crumble from the edges downwards but from the center upwards.

And it is becoming tiresome already. What you need to calculate is the pressure on the most vulnerable parts and whether this pressure is the same in every direction.or whether those most vulnerable parts will change shape because of the uneven pressure. The sum of forces is close to zero in every part of the block, just as the sum of forces in every part of a building that is not falling is zero.

Ok, here's a relevant section from Wikipedia. As I had guessed, your entire calculation is junk. You can't just consider the centers of gravity, you have to consider each point in both bodies. You are assuming that you can consider a block as a point mass, but this is not true for non-spherical bodies.

Don't design any bridges until you've mastered the maths further...  ;)

Bodies with spatial extent

If the bodies of question have spatial extent (rather than being theoretical point masses), then the gravitational force between them is calculated by summing the contributions of the notional point masses which constitute the bodies. In the limit, as the component point masses become "infinitely small", this entails integrating the force (in vector form, see below) over the extents of the two bodies.

In this way it can be shown that an object with a spherically-symmetric distribution of mass exerts the same gravitational attraction on external bodies as if all the object's mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.[2] (This is not generally true for non-spherically-symmetrical bodies.)

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 26, 2009, 02:12:27 PM »
And another P.S.:

Please study vectors again. Vectors are not lines between two points. And neither are the vector fields.

I've actually got a degree in math, so I think I've stumbled upon the whole "vectors" thing before.

Are you actually familiar with calculus, or are is high school mechanical engineering (based on textbook) as far as you've gotten so far?

You still haven't shown any examples of people calculating gravitational forces using a similar model. I'm suspecting that you have a hammer and everything is starting to look like a nail. You can't use the "truck weighing 4000lbs is 80ft from one end of the bridge" approach to solving all physics problems, you know?

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 26, 2009, 08:40:38 AM »
P.S. Please explain to me what this means:
that does NOT give you the force between those two points.

Force is something that acts upon an object in every definition I have found. Is there a definition where a force is between two points that I am not aware of?

I believe that's what a vector field is. Since you're calculating based on a point mass, there's no actual "object" in the sense you would have with mechanical engineering.

I thought about it further, and your calculation just doesn't work. Given a block R, you must integrate across all the points to get an accurate calculation of the force acting at a certain internal point. There is no way I can think of to do this without integral calculus. The force you are calculating is a net force between two center of gravities. It does not imply that that force would be spread across the surfaces.

I did some napkin calculations. Figuring out the gravitational vector field on a cuboid is either a lot harder than it appears at first glance, or my calculus is extremely rusty.

Here is my plan:

1. Calculate gravitational vector field over entire cuboid.

2. Consider a corner of the cuboid. See if the force is enough to deform it.

If anyone has some formulas please spit them out, otherwise I will try to calculate it.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 25, 2009, 02:05:55 PM »
bowler, I'm thinking just Newtonian physics for the purposes of force calculations, so a vector field should work fine.

Also, in Trig's static model, you're computing pressure between two internal points (the centers of gravity), but you're ignoring all the mass on the outside of those two points, which should be exerting gravitational force away from the center of the block. That's why I was leery of the calculation. The two massive blocks might have a net attraction as calculated, but that would not be what the actual surfaces in contact experience.
Truly, zeroply, you should get some help with the maths. The calculation is correct and you can check in several ways. What I did not say is that the pressure along the axis perpendicular to the line between the two centers of gravity is much less than the one I calculated, so the metal will move out.

You can do this the hard way, of course, doing the calculation with differential equations, or you can trust mine. But, before having to do all that work and taking into account your abilities for mathematics, think first: are you going to get a radically different result, or are you searching for the minuscule error that might be hidden somewhere?

Just accept that the forces you are looking at are humongous, enough to twist the best metal structure or block like butter.

Can you point me to some reference that this is the correct way to calculate gravitational forces on the inside of a solid body?

Here's my problem - consider two points that are 1m each from the center of the Earth, diametrically opposed, so that the total distance between them is 2m. If you consider the Earth as two hemispheres and calculate the force between the COGs, that does NOT give you the force between those two points. By doing the calculation that way, you would be off by orders of magnitude.

Similarly, while the total force between the two blocks would be what you have calculated, that does not equate to having that force spread equally across a plane, as you are doing. You need to consider the gravitational force from every point, not just the COGs.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 25, 2009, 11:33:43 AM »
bowler, I'm thinking just Newtonian physics for the purposes of force calculations, so a vector field should work fine.

Also, in Trig's static model, you're computing pressure between two internal points (the centers of gravity), but you're ignoring all the mass on the outside of those two points, which should be exerting gravitational force away from the center of the block. That's why I was leery of the calculation. The two massive blocks might have a net attraction as calculated, but that would not be what the actual surfaces in contact experience.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 24, 2009, 02:58:44 PM »
      OK, I have some numbers crunched:

      Suppose, as you do in static mechanics, that your 6000 by 6000 by 1000 kilometer block is really a 6000x5000x1000 and a 6000x1000x1000 kilometer block, just touching to make the original block. Then you just have to calculate the attraction between the blocks:
      • Density of lead: 11340 kg/m3
      • Mass of block1: 3.4x1023kg
      • Mass of block 2: 6.8x1022kg
      • Distance between centers of gravity: 3000000 m
      • Big G: 6.673x10-11
      • Gravitational pull: G*m1*m2/r2=1.72x1023 Newtons
      • Area of contact: 6x1016 cm2
      • Pressure: 2,800,000 N/cm2

      For comparison, the pressure you can produce with a hammer is of the order of 10,000 N/cm
2. A block of lead is not capable of resisting a blow with a hammer, so it would not be able to keep its shape with any protruding feature of more than 1000 kilometers of height. If you refine the maths you will get to the conclusion that any protruding feature of a few kilometers in height will collapse under its own weight.

In fact, since a low grade steel block does not resist a blow with a hammer either without loosing its shape, and steel has about half the density of lead, it follows that any feature of a few tens of kilometers in height will collapse if the original block is made of low grade steel.[/list]

Is this the preferred way to do this type of calculation? I would think it would make more sense to talk about a gravitational vector field and look at the maximum values (at the corners). Why did you pick these particular block sizes instead of say two identically sized blocks?

I would imagine that the internal pressure would be very great as your calculations are suggesting, but how does that affect the surface?[/list]

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: Time Dilation
« on: February 22, 2009, 03:11:03 PM »
If you constructed a massive flat lead plate (say the size of Asia), and floated it somewhere in space motionless with respect to the Sun, you would obtain exactly the same results when doing your experiment on a tower somewhere on that plate.

The problem with all these ingenious uses of gravitational pull is that they immediately require the huge masses to be spherical, since every part of those masses is attracted towards the centre of the mass by the same gravitational pull. Anything bigger than a few kilometres wide will crumble into a somewhat spherical shape unless it is solid rock, and even solid rock will crumble if greater than a few hundred kilometres wide. In fact, on Earth (the real one, described by modern science), not even a mountain like the Everest can maintain its height unless it is permanently pushed upwards by plate tectonics.

So your lead plate would have to have a nucleus of solid steel to be even close to the size required, and you would have to explain why Earth itself has not crumbled into a spheroid.


Do you have any math to back up these wild assertions? You're saying that a metal block say 6000km x 6000km x 1000km could not exist for a few days without crumbling into a sphere? Even if made of solid lead?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13