1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do things fall?

« on: April 11, 2021, 03:30:14 AM »

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

Actually, the CMB is redshifted like the galaxies. However, redshift occurs for reasons other than velocity. - https://wiki.tfes.org/Doppler_Shift

There are anomalies contradicting the idea that the redshift we see in space is a velocity redshift. Look into Halton Arp's work.

The CMB loses energy with the expansion of the universe, but we don't observe it as being red shifted in all directions like we do for all distant galaxies. In the direction of 10.5 Right Ascension, -24 declination the CMB is blue shifted, and in the opposite direction red shifted, which confirms the Galaxy is moving wrt the co-moving reference frame at approx 600 km/s.
 

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do things fall?

« on: April 11, 2021, 02:43:40 AM »

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

As it is above us, it would be blue shifted. But then you would need a reference for it to compare to. What should this light look like?

I think @PosteriorMotive was referring to the car and camera which had nothing to do with the CMB.

Yes the CMB would be blueshifted in the direction of acceleration. What do you mean by needing a reference?

My bad, yes that has the directionality flipped.
In the case of the camera it would be redshifted.

The reference is needed to see if it is shifted or not.
This is because if both are accelerating together, then, if I recall correctly, the shift is constant.
That means it wouldn't be observed to shift over time.
So without a reference you wouldn't know if it is shifted or not.

Yes, the red shift would be constant and as you say a reference would be needed such as knowing the rest wavelength of the light being emitted. Cosmologists use a similar method by knowing the rest wavelength of the CMB. If we were accelerating into the CMB the blue shift wouldn't be constant, it would drift with time. 

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do things fall?

« on: April 09, 2021, 02:45:29 PM »

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

As it is above us, it would be blue shifted. But then you would need a reference for it to compare to. What should this light look like?

I think @PosteriorMotive was referring to the car and camera which had nothing to do with the CMB.

Yes the CMB would be blueshifted in the direction of acceleration. What do you mean by needing a reference? 

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do things fall?

« on: April 09, 2021, 09:25:06 AM »

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

What if the camera's accelerating at the same speed as the car?

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do things fall?

« on: April 09, 2021, 07:08:09 AM »

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: January 20, 2021, 08:22:55 AM »

Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing. After the smoke sufficiently fill the cylinder, it's not vacuum anymore.

Rockets are actually more efficient in a vacuum. As you can see in the equation for thrust, when P0 (atmospheric pressure) is zero then the thrust is at its maximum.

 

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The case for Gravity and UA

« 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. 

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Strange correlation between Betelgeuse brightness dynamics and solar activity.

« on: January 06, 2021, 09:36:00 AM »

Annual cyclicity of Betelgeuse brightness fluctuations.

The annual cyclical fluctuations in the brightness of Betelgeuse can be explained by the fact that in December the Sun is farther from it, and in June - is closer to it (given the rotation of the Earth and the Sun as in the animation below, the Earth is larger). Betelgeuse is located in the constellation Orion. Sun in Orion (Orion behind Sun) in June.

That was 2019
Then in 2020 from wiki:

Observations with the STEREO-A spacecraft made in June and July 2020 showed that the star had dimmed by 0.5 since the last ground-based observation in April. This is surprising, because a maximum was expected for August/September 2020, and the next minimum should occur around April 2021. However, Betelgeuse's brightness is known to vary irregularly, making predictions difficult. The fading could indicate that another dimming event might occur much earlier than expected.[76] On 30 August 2020, astronomers reported the detection of a second dust cloud emitted from Betelgeuse, and associated with recent substantial dimming (a secondary minimum on 3 August) in luminosity of the star.[77]

It also states that Betelgeuse's brightness is known to vary irregularly, so its no surprise that some years it happens to be at its brightest while in conjunction with the Sun.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The case for Gravity and UA

« on: January 04, 2021, 11:24:55 AM »

Anyone who rejects gravity and uses a smartphone is a hypocrite.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: December 31, 2020, 10:26:30 AM »

To stay on topic: If you're a flat earther, would the picture above change your mind about the universe being small in FET? apparently m104 is about 50 million light years away.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: December 31, 2020, 09:45:25 AM »

Nice pics there solarwind thanks.

I took this picture about 13 years ago. It was taken using a Meade lx90 8 inch and a cannon 350D, and if I remember correctly the picture consists of ten 30 second exposures stacked together using photoshop. I'm no expert, but was very pleased with this image, Its m104 "The Sombrero Galaxy". I don't have the scope anymore, and haven't done any amateur astronomy for years now, wish I still did though.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Alone in universe"

« on: December 30, 2020, 07:38:52 AM »

So would you say that SETI are completely wasting their time and money by listening for ET?

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Alone in universe"

« on: December 30, 2020, 02:43:13 AM »

I wonder how many stars there are within a hundred light years from Earth? About the distance we've been sending radio signals.
I can imagine an alien race with radio/optical telescopes who's dishes/mirrors span many kms across, scanning the cosmos for life or habitable planets similar to their own.
We could build them on the dark side of the moon, the moon's low gravity would make it much easier and since the moon spins once per orbit, it would allow us to scan a large portion of the sky. Imagine what we would see with an optical telescope 1 km in diameter.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Alone in universe"

« on: December 29, 2020, 02:59:25 PM »

Another possibility is that the aliens already know of our existence and decided its better to leave us alone. If you think about it, a species that is capable of interstellar travel would have to be highly educated and their understanding of how the universe works would be far better than ours. If they have the technology and know how to reach the stars, then they will also have the capabilities of detecting us first.

If we ever get to the stage of interstellar travel then they might introduce themselves and show us how to use the Galactic highways 

 

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Alone in universe"

« on: December 29, 2020, 07:38:26 AM »

Even with how rare life should be, the Milky Way is so huge, has so many stars and so many planets and has had so many billions of years that it still seems strange that life isn't swarming all over it. 

All it would take is ONE space-faring species to colonize the galaxy.

It's one of lifes big mysteries... where are the aliens? They should be out there.

What stopped them? Kind of terrifying to think about.

if we are limited to the speed of light for communication then it would be impossible for a species to colonize the Galaxy. It would take over 8 years to send and receive a signal from the nearest star system, and 200,000 years from one side of the Galaxy to the other. This might be the reason we don't see or hear the aliens. 

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ways to demonstrate Earth is round

« on: December 24, 2020, 04:29:10 AM »

Its shape is a flat closed surface. You can evidence it directly from Newton's Laws and the Equivalence principle. You can observe it by noting all objects travel their inertial path and that gravity is a pseudoforce. I have already provided the mathematics that describe it.

Is this the mathematics that you have provided:



All this shows is that you have a surface integral where gravity (g) acts in the same direction on every point of the surface. It doesn't tell us anything about the surface itself, you have missed out a whole bunch of maths as to how you arrived at the answer. There needs to be a coordinate system such as cartesian coordinates   or for a circular disk polar coodinates or maybe spherical and you need to show a definite integral with limits, then we could find a value for the area, mass and density. With no coordinate system then this math is useless and it doesn't describe anything about the shape or surface of the Flat Earth.

Also, on the subject of mathematics for FET I would like to know how the formula for Electromagnet Acceleration works shown below:



If we rearrange the equation we have:



And since the Bishop's constant is a constant, then the right hand side of this equation is constant, so we can say:



Then the equation for Electromagnetic Acceleration can be written as:



How does this simple equation explain the phenomenon of bendy light?   

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: December 05, 2020, 11:53:52 AM »

I think its more about systems and you need to define a system before accounting for any extra mass/energy to that system.
From JB's post I think the spring is the best example. If you isolate a spring as one system and transfer energy to the spring such as a human compressing it, then the spring gains energy and stores it as potential energy and thus giving the spring slightly more mass, since energy is mass according to E = mc^2.

Another example would be say a 1 kg ball that sits 1 m above the surface of the Earth. If we move the ball to say 500 m above the Earth then the kinetic energy you use in moving the ball gets transferred to the ball and is stored as 'gravitational potential energy', again the ball gains a little mass. However, in this case you cannot isolate the ball as one system because the ball and the Earth are gravitationally attracted to each other, therefore you have to include the Earth to the system. So then the Earth/ball system gains zero mass.

For a constantly accelerating rocket, although the rocket will gain mass/energy from the relativistic effects, the rocket is also using fuel which must be included in the system. So the fuel/rocket system gains zero mass/energy from constant acceleration.

For the flat Earth constantly accelerating upwards, then this is a tricky one because FE'rs claim 'Dark Energy' is the source of energy to keep it accelerating forever. Since we know nothing about dark energy/matter then we couldn't say whether the Earth gains mass/energy or not, and if it did gain energy/mass it wouldn't be the baryonic mass we're all familiar with.     

   

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: December 04, 2020, 03:03:11 PM »

Markjo would have us believe that GN-z11 is 32 billlion light-years away, ergo from that frame, the earth is travelling at greater than ~70,000 km/s and still accelerating given his mode of universal expansion! WhErE iS tHe ReLaTaViStIc EfFeCtS?!

I don't think you can compare it to the expansion of the universe, those speeds are only apparent speeds. In fact if your only motion in the universe was co-moving with the expansion, then you would be in the perfect inertial frame of reference, at rest with respect to the CMB. There most certainly wouldn't be any relativistic effects going on.   

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What valid answer is given to the claim of shorter flight time in southern hemis

« on: November 21, 2020, 04:33:55 PM »

At least some quite vocal FEers dismiss these flights as fake, solely because they show Earth isn't flat. They can provide nothing to establish them as fake, and can't point out any issue with the evidence that shows they are fake.

Others resort to a bi-polar map, like this:

This then allows those flights around the south pole to exist (but still not match properly).
However instead of solving the problem, it just pushes it around.
For example, on that map a flight from Australia to North America makes no sense.

But you might find a discussion of why you think Earth is flat to be more productive.

Hi JB
Do you know how the Sun would move above the bi-polar model?

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: November 21, 2020, 08:42:19 AM »

Feel free to dig around a little bit and see if you can come up with a real answer. I mean, you won't, because you can't, because there is no law that prevents something from being able to accelerate at a constant rate for an arbitrary amount of time. And that object will still never appear to exceed c to any observer.

How do we know this? because Einstein showed us. The same man who formulated the General Theory of Relativity, which describes how "gravity" works... the thing that keeps us fixed to the surface of the Earth.     

Odd. I'm pretty sure Einstein said Gravity doesn't exist.

I think what he meant by that was Gravity doesn't exist as a force, in the way that Newton described gravity.
Newton always thought that there was some kind of instantaneous force between two masses that pulled them together. Einstein realized this was wrong and that objects in freefall accelerating towards the Earth had no forces acting on them. It was this that led him to formulate his theory of general relativity (curved spacetime).

Just because in GR the proper acceleration at the Earth's surface is approx 9.81 m/s^2, doesn't mean its actually accelerating, for example in the UK the proper acceleration is 1g upwards and in Australia it has a proper acceleration of the same magnitude but in the opposite direction. So how can the Earth be accelerating in both directions?   

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: November 17, 2020, 11:05:50 AM »

I was referring to the way you invoked GR to make an argument that GR doesn't support. I thought that was clear, but if it wasn't, now I've stated it explicitly.

Ok fair enough.
On the subject of GR where accelerating frames are involved. According to Einstein and if my understanding is correct, the proper acceleration (measured by an accelerometer) within an accelerating frame will decrease with height in the direction of acceleration. So if the Earth was accelerating at 1g at the surface, then you would measure a different acceleration from say at the top of a skyscraper 1000 m above the surface.

Gravity also produces the same effect, the acceleration due to gravity decreases with height or altitude, only with gravity the decrease drops off more rapidly than it does for the accelerated frame.

I we had sensitive enough accelerometers then I think we could detect this difference between gravity and acceleration by placing one accelerometers at the surface and another in a high rise building approx 1000 m above.

What do you think? is this correct?
I've added a diagram showing the difference in acceleration that would be measured by accelerometers for both scenarios, gravity on the left and acceleration on the right of the picture.

   

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: November 16, 2020, 04:49:20 PM »

Don't talk down to me from your high horse while you are demonstrating you don't know the first thing about GR. If there were a disc accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s², someone standing on that disc would experience something that felt very much like gravity and at literally no point would that observer think they are traveling anywhere even remotely close to c, because when they go to check, they'll always find they are traveling at precisely 0% of c. And that's because c is invariable - from any FoR, it never changes. And that's according to the same guy you are insulting when you start making assertions in his name that his work doesn't claim.

I will admit my knowledge in physics is not good and my math is even worse. I'm ok with a bit of arithmetic but that's about it really.
I never insulted Einstein, did I?

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: November 16, 2020, 10:41:23 AM »

Feel free to dig around a little bit and see if you can come up with a real answer. I mean, you won't, because you can't, because there is no law that prevents something from being able to accelerate at a constant rate for an arbitrary amount of time. And that object will still never appear to exceed c to any observer.

How do we know this? because Einstein showed us. The same man who formulated the General Theory of Relativity, which describes how "gravity" works... the thing that keeps us fixed to the surface of the Earth.     

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: November 15, 2020, 05:53:39 PM »

If the Earth was accelerating upwards then I think we would measure a significant blueshift for the CMB,

Do you think flat Earth is plowing through a stationary universe?

No, the whole universe is miraculously accelerating through space together.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has the flat earth reached the speed of light yet?

« on: November 15, 2020, 12:05:42 PM »

If the Earth was accelerating upwards then I think we would measure a significant blueshift for the CMB, in the direction of acceleration. And it would become more blueshifted with time.

In FET what is the CMB?

26

Flat Earth General / Re: FE 'Gravity'

« on: October 04, 2020, 12:42:50 PM »

Also, the units for the two accelerations are different. 
For a rocket accelerating at 1g then the value and units is given by:  
And for the receding galaxies we use the Hubble constant which is:

Hubble's constant is not a measure of acceleration.
It compares the velocity to the distance.
An acceleration must have units of length per (time squared).
If it doesn't it isn't an acceleration.

Also note that Hubble's constant varies with time.

The fundamental difference between the expansion of the universe and an accelerating rocket is what you said earlier, that the rocket accelerates through space while the expansion of the universe is the expansion of space.
That means that the rocket accelerating produces a pseudo-force on the objects inside, making them appear to fall to the floor of the rocket; but the expansion of the universe would move the entire planet and everything on it together without any significant pseudo-force in the reference frame of the planet and thus objects wouldn't appear to fall to the floor.

The exception to the latter point is a hypothesised potential end of the universe, where the expansion of the universe increases such that objects even quite close together have an appreciable force trying to pull it apart, eventually tearing apart every structure in existence.
Also note that that means the insignificant pseudo-force due to the expansion is acting to tear the objects apart, not make them fall, so that would cause us to fly away from Earth not towards it.

Yes I agree that the Hubble constant is not a measure of acceleration, and I'd also like to point out that the recession speeds we measure for distant galaxies are only apparent speeds centred from our vantage point. If we observe a galaxy say 10 Mpc away then the recession speed measured will be approx. 700 km/s, but for an observer just 1 Mpc from that same galaxy, then they will observe that galaxy to be receding at 70 km/s.

All observers in the universe will see a different Hubble sphere. Have a look at this diagram which shows how two galaxies will observe their expansion:

Section D is centred on the Milkyway and section C is centred on a galaxy 1 Mpc away from the Milkyway.
If you look at the galaxy directly above the Milkyway in section D, you can see that we observe the galaxy to be moving away from us which is the upwards direction on the diagram. If you look at the same galaxy in section C, then the galaxy at 1 Mpc observes the same galaxy receding away from it in another direction which is to the right of the diagram.

Since space is expanding in all directions then there wont be any pseudo-forces acting on us.

I think the current accepted model for the fate of the universe is the "big freeze" where unbounded objects will continue to expand forever, but bounded objects such as Galaxies, solar systems, planet and even the molecules and atoms we're made of will remain bounded. In a couple of hundred billion years we won't be able to see any galaxies as their light wont reach us anymore due to them expanding faster than light, and stars will no longer form due to the lack of hydrogen in the universe.   

27

Flat Earth General / Re: FE 'Gravity'

« on: October 02, 2020, 03:07:10 PM »

Without defining that, the exercise you are asking for is meaningless, UA or otherwise - that was my point. Velocity doesn't mean anything without defining what 2 things you are measuring a difference between. The energy requirement you are talking about refers to an outside observer in a fixed frame watching some object accelerate at velocities that appear to be getting ever closer to c from that observer's frame of reference. Let's say Person A is that outside observer I was just talking about, and Person B is on a rocket that is accelerating at 9.8 m/s² and because of the wonders of some incredible scientific advancement, this rocket is able to accelerate like that for an arbitrary amount of time. Person A is the one that see Person B asymptotically approach c over time. Person B experiences the rocket continuing to accelerate at a constant rate and never thinks for any reason that they are approaching c, because if they were to measure c themselves, they would find in that instant they are traveling precisely 0% of c. And meanwhile, they are still using fuel at exactly the same rate they were when they initially departed.

I get that UA is fun to take shots at. But the common tropes about "the disc would be going faster than c" or "imagine the near infinite amount of energy it would take after some number of years" - those arguments don't really work. We live in a universe where very massive things are being accelerated in a constant (or even accelerating) rate away from us and we don't stop to say "imagine how much energy it takes to keep moving ALL the GALAXIES away from us faster and faster for BILLIONS of YEARS!!1!1oneOnE" because we accept that our model requires the fabric of the universe to have this as some sort of inherent property that definitely seems to be happening and definitely merits more research. In UA, there's a different inherent property of the universe that accelerates things up at g. Poke holes in the concept that are interesting and not based on wrong principles, is what I'm trying to say.

I don't think you can compare an accelerating rocket to the accelerating expansion of the universe, because the two accelerations are not the same. An accelerating rocket is essentially travelling through space, whereas the co-moving galaxies that are receding away from us are NOT, and it's the space between them that is expanding.

Also, the units for the two accelerations are different. 
For a rocket accelerating at 1g then the value and units is given by:  
And for the receding galaxies we use the Hubble constant which is:

Notice how the Hubble constant has two units of distance km and Mpc, so a galaxy at distance of 1 Mpc will be receding from us at 70 km/s, at 2 Mpc 140 km/s, at 3 Mpc 210 km/s and so on...

The speed of an accelerating rocket is dependent on time, whereas the speed of the receding galaxies is dependent on distance.

The Hubble constant is also useful for estimating the age of the universe which is given by: 

28

Flat Earth General / Re: FE 'Gravity'

« on: September 02, 2020, 03:12:18 PM »

For UA to work then it would need to accelerate the Earth, moon, Sun and all the other celestial bodies at different rates in order for them to remain the same distance apart.

If they all accelerate at the same rate, they should remain the same distance apart.
What makes you think they would need to accelerate at different rates?

What I'm trying to say is that for an accelerating frame such as rocket accelerating at 1g, the rate of acceleration from the rear to the nose of the rocket decreases. This is due to clocks running faster at the nose and to compensate for this then the acceleration must decrease otherwise the the rocket would stretch and break apart. Have a look at the diagram below:

For observers A and B onboard the rocket, B's clock will run faster than A's clock, and if observer A had an accelerometer that reads an acceleration of then B's accelerometer will read 
If both observers had the same proper accelerations, then the ship would would become elongated.

You may have heard of the "bell spaceship paradox" where two rockets, one in front of the other, both start to accelerate at exactly 1g. There's a piece of string connecting to the two ships, and after a certain amount of time the string breaks even though both ships are accelerating at exactly 1g. Here's a paper and a quote from it:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2007/2007.04186.pdf

The Bell Paradox Explained
This resolves the Bell Paradox directly. In a single spaceship, the time speed at the tip differs from that
of the tail. A tail rider therefore would measure the acceleration as greater than that of a tip rider. That
is, for the single spaceship to avoid compression or elongation, the tip and the tail must measure
different accelerations. This is just as on Earth, where we measure different accelerations at different
elevations.

The Bell Paradox scenario imposes the same acceleration at different elevations, and that will cause
elongation. The lead spaceship will pull away. The reason is that “time runs faster up there” in an
accelerating reference frame.

 

So, for UA to work then the celestial bodies above us such as the Sun and Moon, must have different accelerations in order to remain the same distance apart. If we measure 1g at the surface of the Earth, then the Sun and Moon must be accelerating by:    where h is the height of the Sun or moon from the surface of the Earth.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: FE 'Gravity'

« on: September 01, 2020, 06:17:41 PM »

For UA to work then it would need to accelerate the Earth, moon, Sun and all the other celestial bodies at different rates in order for them to remain the same distance apart.   

30

Flat Earth General / Re: FE 'Gravity'

« on: September 01, 2020, 05:32:40 PM »

Yes, the math is fun to do. And yes, it leads to very large numbers. But it's almost as absurd as accepting as axiomatic that Earth is a flat disc undergoing UA.

That's kind of the point.

But the main reason I did it was to pin down what the outside universe must be like, empty. If there was ANYTHING else in our path, hitting it at that speed would be catastrophic. And the speeds are so insane that there wouldn't be any point to assuming we only hit things going roughly in our direction. At that velocity there is no wiggle room, the smallest discrepancy in speed means an Earth shattering kaboom.

This is where I have a problem with it though. There needn't be any wiggle room. If everything "above" the disc is subject to the same thing that is causing the UA, there isn't a stray particle or anything to worry about. It's all getting forced up at the same rate. It's kind of a requirement of UA. So whatever the cause of UA, it would be pushing everything we see in the sky up at the same rate we're going up.

If UA was pushing all celestial bodies upwards at the same rate as Earth of exactly 1g, then we would see them all receding away from us, the sun, moon and all the stars would be receding away from the Earth.