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 - TexasH

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 22, 2015, 09:53:25 AM »
No, I wasn't trying to take a shot at you, which makes this a bit funny.
Really?  Then what was this:

I'll repost this nugget:

Gravitation indirectly causes acceleration. 

Stand on a fixed surface within a gravitational field, you will experience an acceleration.

Stand on a fixed surface outside a gravitational field, you will not experience an acceleration.

TheEngineer obviously ignored it since it was accurate and doesn't fit his agenda.

If you think that was a shot, then this whole conversation went over your head.

Quote
I'm finished trying to explain it
You haven't attempted to explain anything yet.  You only made a statement that I took something out of context and then started asking a bunch of questions.

Just because you don't understand the explanation, doesn't mean it wasn't explained.

Quote
I think I gave you too much credit before.
"Crap, I got called out and now I don't know how to get out of it!  What do I do?!?  Aha!  Run away!"
Got it.

No, it's more like trying to teach calculus to a 5-year old.  At some point, it is no longer worth the effort.

2
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

why would I be likened to a troll(being compared to weissedel who is called a troll)
first of all this site is full of discorded before I arrived
Second I cannot upset others(people can only allow themselves to be upset(everyone should be in control of their own emotions))
thirdly,Nothing I commented on is off topic since the site is about flat earth(technically any round earth conversation is off topic)
And finally how could anyone really know what my intentions are for being here, you only SPECULATE that i deliberately intend on provoking readers into an emotional response. (why are you so emotionally invested into this to begin with?)

Here is a little tip.  If you are not a troll, and you are accused of being one, just ignore it.  Defending yourself will not do any good since a troll would defend himself as well.  Just don't let it bother you and carry on.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 22, 2015, 05:41:32 AM »
Quote
In fact, it expressly states that 'gravity' does not cause an acceleration. 

Translated:
Gravitation is inertial motion along geodesics.

You are right about one thing:  I have no idea what you are trying to say.  It seems like you tried to take a cheap shot at me without understanding what I (or even yourself?) was saying.

No, I wasn't trying to take a shot at you, which makes this a bit funny.  I'm finished trying to explain it, if you haven't got it by now, you never will.  I think I gave you too much credit before.

4
If you make an accurate statement, he doesn't refute it.
He refuted the statements that gravitational attraction obeys the inverse square law, and that it is capable of imparting motion to a static body. Both of those are accurate.

Newton's model follows the inverse square law.

Gravitation doesn't impart motion on a static body.

The inverse square law of Newton's model does not conflict with anything subsequently amended by the current gravity model. It still applies. It remains an accurate statement.
I genuinely fail to see how motion is NOT imparted to a static body by gravity. I suspect your lack of explanation is a deliberate attempt to get someone to disagree with you and trip up (strange, you're almost like the "Engineer"'s alt in that respect...) Therefore, I would like you to explain what imparts motion to an apple which I'm holding stationary, and then I let go of it. I strongly suspect your answer will rely heavily on semantics rather than physics.

Newton's model is great for most applications.  It doesn't work at relativistic speeds or in strong gravitational environments though, that is why we need Einstein's more complex model.  I use Newton's model all the time, it is a lot simpler to work with and provides an accurate answer for most applications.

Also, don't compare me to TheEngineer, that's a bit insulting.  Sorry for not explaining further, I was running errands, and typed out a quick response on my phone.  Mass curves/distorts space time.  The greater the mass, the greater the curvature/distortion.  The difficulty in seeing this is due to us being used to seeing objects in a non-curved space.  An object in free fall actually follows a straight line, but space time is curved/distorted, so it has the appearance that the object is curving/moving.  The easy way to visualize this is to think of how airline flights fly along great circle routes.  On a flat map, it appears the aircraft is flying a curved route, but if you look at the flight in a curved space (a globe), the flight is straight (neglecting the curvature of Earth, since it can't fly through the Earth).

Anyway, the surface of the Earth is accelerating up to meet the object, however, this isn't the same as a flat Earth accelerating upward as if propelled from underneath as the acceleration varies all over the surface of the Earth.  We can measure this acceleration with accelerometers to confirm that the acceleration varies across the globe.  If the flat Earth model were true, it would have ripped apart a long time ago due to these variations in acceleration at different points. 

Back to your original question, when you are holding an apple, you are accelerating the apple.  A force is required to hold it where it is as the apple wants to follow a geodesic to the center of mass that is causing the gravitational field.  Release the apple and it is no longer subject to the force from your hand and follows the geodesic towards the center of Earth's mass until the Earth has accelerated up to meet it.  Geodesics in a gravitational field can go in all sorts of directions depending on the initial motion of the object.

Now, all of that is harder to visualize and calculate.  If we switch the frame of reference, we get Newton's model, which is much simpler and easier to use.  To summarize, Einstein's model is correct and true (as far as we know at least) and Newton's model is correct for a certain set of circumstances (which includes dropping an apple from your hand).  Newton's model is never true, but it doesn't have to be to correctly answer most questions.  Most engineers understand this and I want to believe TheEngineer does as well.  If two models are both correct for the application, use the simpler model.

You just used the phrase "until the Earth has accelerated up to meet it."
Since strictly speaking there is no difference (according to relativity) between the earth moving to meet the apple, and the apple moving to meet the earth, and you have just stated that motion occurs (two objects change relative positions in spacetime, which is a fairly good definition of motion). You have also stated that this motion is a result of objects following spacetime geodesics (which is what gravity is if it isn't a force).
If there were no geodesics to follow (i.e. gravity was absent) then according to your description, that motion would not occur. The fact that the apple is static due to the force from my hand does not negate that it is static. It is static because two opposing influences are in balance.
Therefore, according to your own description, gravity causes an object to move, and is therefore capable of imparting motion to a static body.
As I suspected, your argument rested entirely on fancy language and making something very simple very complicated and hoping nobody would notice that saying "the earth accelerates to meet the apple" is a reversible statement.
2/10.

You asked one question, "does gravitation impart motion on a static object" that I answered, then you refuted my answer using a different question, "does gravitation impart motion between a static object and the Earth."

That is similar to asking me if you press the accelerator in your car, will it cause the parked car is front of you to move and when I say "no," you say that it is moving when you press the accelerator as now the cars are closer together.  It doesn't change the fact the parked car didn't move. 

What question are you asking, the question from your original post or the reply?

Also, holding an apple in your hand isn't static, it's accelerating away from the center of Earth's mass.  If you don't believe me, download an accelerometer app for your phone (if you have one), and measure the acceleration while holding it.  If the object is static, then the acceleration should be zero.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 21, 2015, 01:41:01 PM »
To be clear, you said:
Quote
Gravitation indirectly causes acceleration.
Which was followed by this statement:
Quote
Stand on a fixed surface within a gravitational field, you will experience an acceleration.

What I have stated in the past:
We are all trying to follow the geodesics into the Earth.  However, the Earth, due to mechanical resistance, prevents us from doing this, which results in our continual physical upwards acceleration.

The shorter version is:
Quote
we are already accelerating, due to the mechanical resistance of the Earth pushing on us.  Hence, the non-inertial frame of reference.

So, now let's look at this (your statements in bold, my statements in parenthesis):
Stand on a fixed surface (mechanical resistance of the Earth) within a gravitational field (geodesics), you will experience an acceleration (we are already accelerating/continual physical upwards acceleration/non-inertial FOR).

Not sure why you are making this so complicated.  You already agreed that my interpretation of GR was correct.

You aren't understanding what I am saying.

Explain this post:

In fact, it expressly states that 'gravity' does not cause an acceleration. 

6
Quote
  You are missing the point here though.  Imagine the Earth is actually flat and satellites do not exist.
Then the Global Positioning System would not work.  It requires satellites.   Other systems, such as LORAN, have worked with ground based towers - these do not require satellites.  The GPS is a particular system utilising particular technologies, namely satellites.

You can't just refute the other person's argument this way.
I can, and I have.  As you stated before, TheEngineer is keen on "lawyerly" (disingenuous!) arguments and that is what we are having here.  I'm not talking about the generalities of creating a positioning system, but the specifics of the Global Positioning System.

"GPS does not require satellites."

Is incorrect.  Every single GPS device on the planet will calculate its position using time-stamp / almanac information from 3 or more satellites.  If those satellites weren't there, or you blocked the device's line of sight to them, then it couldn't work out a position.  Therefore GPS does require satellites.

Of course, hypothetically, ground based systems that don't require satellites could be built, like LORAN.  However we are not discussing LORAN, we are discussing GPS.

Yes, I am clearly playing devil's advocate here.  I am just saying, you aren't going to convince a FE'er he is wrong using that argument.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 21, 2015, 10:12:12 AM »
The point of my post, since you obviously missed it (deliberately or not):

Gravitation indirectly causes acceleration. 

That's exactly what this means:
Quote
we are already accelerating, due to the mechanical resistance of the Earth pushing on us.  Hence, the non-inertial frame of reference.
Good Lord, not everything is a manipulation conspiracy.  Sometimes, things are exactly as they appear.

So, I'm a bit confused.  When I say gravitation causes acceleration, you claim that is what you have been saying all along.  However, you specifically said that gravitation does not cause an acceleration to Master_Evar.  Which is it exactly?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 21, 2015, 09:18:06 AM »
Funny that you are using manipulation in response to a post calling you out for it.  You know it doesn't work on someone that can see through your posts, right?
Hmm, I don't understand what you are getting at.  Our posts say the same thing.  I fail to see the manipulation.  Please explain.

You took one sentence from my post and deleted the rest.  That one sentence was the same as something you said.  The part you took out of context was not the point of my post.  Therefore, you manipulated what the point of my post was.

The point of my post, since you obviously missed it (deliberately or not):

Gravitation indirectly causes acceleration. 

9
Quote
  You are missing the point here though.  Imagine the Earth is actually flat and satellites do not exist.
Then the Global Positioning System would not work.  It requires satellites.   Other systems, such as LORAN, have worked with ground based towers - these do not require satellites.  The GPS is a particular system utilising particular technologies, namely satellites.

You can't just refute the other person's argument this way.  The FE'er believes that GPS uses a ground-based system and that is how this particular system works in their mind.  You need to refute why it can't work as a ground-based system, which I believe you are trying to do with this:   

Quote
  It would still be possible to develop a global positioning system that works using ground-based towers.
Not one that could give you a 3D position you couldn't.  And, strictly speaking, you will need millions of sea based towers as well.

Why would it be impossible to develop a ground-based system that can provide 3D position?  If the Earth were flat though, you wouldn't need that many towers.

Quote

If you want to make an argument about satellites (other than being able to see them), satellite television seems to be a better argument.  If satellite television was using ground-based towers, all the satellite dishes wouldn't have to be pointed to the south (for us here in the northern hemisphere).
Well, not just the fact they point south, but they are pointing into the sky.  I'm not sure it is better argument anyway - a television works without satellites, whereas a GPS device won't.

I don't understand your last statement.  If I go on my roof and disconnect my satellite dish.  I lose reception and can't watch a live broadcast.  Sure, my tv works for other purposes, but so does my GPS running watch if all the GPS satellites stopped working.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards.
« on: October 21, 2015, 06:30:15 AM »
This thread is driving me insane.  PL keeps copy/pasting the same thing, everyone else replies with the same response.  Isn't this the definition of insanity?  He is trolling you guys.  Just let the thread die.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: SR71 Pilot Observations
« on: October 21, 2015, 06:07:51 AM »
You don't see?  If one race car is going at a certain speed, you do not see how another race car could possibly be going faster and lap the first?  Are you acting like a retard, or are you actually retarded?  Just wondering.  ???

Do you actually read the posts or just blindly reply based on who is making them?  I was agreeing with you, you nitwit.

As I was saying, I don't see how the speed of the observer makes any difference here.  It would just do one of the following things: increase the apparent motion of the sun, slow down the apparent motion of the sun, cause it appear to stand still, or move in the opposite direction.  None of these proves either model is correct or incorrect.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards.
« on: October 21, 2015, 05:58:25 AM »
If space was a vacuum or extreme low pressure shouldn't all the high pressure atmosphere spread to the low pressure areas in space. You say gravity holds the air(gas) there, yet the same force holds the moon (solid as far as I know) far away from earth???

Gravitation is what keeps the moon from moving away from us.  The reason it doesn't just fall and crash into the Earth is due to its motion.  It is moving with a significant velocity that it maintains its distance from Earth.

Gas molecules, due to their extremely low mass, are not affected by the gravitational field nearly as much.  This is why all the gas molecules aren't just laying on the ground.  There are more gas molecules near the ground due to gravitation though.  Earth is losing helium to space as the gravitation is not strong enough to retain it, while the Sun and Jupiter have plenty of helium and have the gravitation to keep it from venting to space.  This is why small planets and moons do not have an atmosphere as we know it, while the more massive ones do.  It is also dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere.


13

Always read what TheEngineer says carefully.  "GPS does not require satellites." is not the same as "GPS does not use satellites."
You don't have to read it carefully to realise it's factually incorrect either way.  Location services in general may not require satellites, however the Global Positioning System does need satellites to work.  A GPS device works by scanning the sky for timestamps transmissions from satellites, works out your distance from each one via the lag, and then uses trilateration to calculate your position.

Take away the satellites and the GPS device does not work.  Therefore "GPS does not require satellites" is not a correct statement.  The GPS system does require satellites - there is literally no other way a GPS device could work.

Quote
You can triangulate locations using ground-based towers.
They do not give you a 3D position, whereas GPS does.    And never to 5 metre accuracy - nowhere near.  This would be impossible from cell towers.  Even in range of 3 towers:

Quote
Using cell tower triangulation (3 towers), it is possible to determine a phone location to within an area of “about” ¾ square mile.
http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/06/01/cell-tower-triangulation-how-it-works/

Although I've seen claims of a few hundred metres in very dense areas - still nothing like GPS accuracy.

It also becomes increasingly inaccurate as cell towers become sparser (outside of cities), up to the point where there are no, or an insufficient number of towers to triangulate.  Whereas GPS works, err, globally.

Quote
Law enforcement does this to locate a cell phone.
Actually, that evidence is being treated with increasing scepticism.

I know how GPS works.  You are missing the point here though.  Imagine the Earth is actually flat and satellites do not exist.  It would still be possible to develop a global positioning system that works using ground-based towers.  The towers themselves would be specifically designed for this purpose.  Cell phone towers weren't designed to be locaters, they were designed to provide cell phone coverage to make phone calls. 

If you want to make an argument about satellites (other than being able to see them), satellite television seems to be a better argument.  If satellite television was using ground-based towers, all the satellite dishes wouldn't have to be pointed to the south (for us here in the northern hemisphere).

14
I have a feeling he actually works for Garmin (or similar GPS company). 
Ooh, good guess, but, no.

I have a feeling I am close; the irony of it is just too good.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 21, 2015, 05:22:14 AM »

Quote
No, we are already accelerating, due to the mechanical resistance of the Earth pushing on us.  Hence, the non-inertial frame of reference.
Not sure what it is you are trying to do here, but you are failing at it.

No, you missed the point of my post and your post does not address the same thing.  You stated that gravitation does not cause an acceleration.  I clearly pointed out that it does indirectly.
I don't think you understand:  My statement and your statement say exactly same thing.

Quote from: You
Stand on a fixed surface within a gravitational field, you will experience an acceleration.

Quote from: Me
we are already accelerating, due to the mechanical resistance of the Earth pushing on us.
Substitute Earth for fixed surface, same statement.

Funny that you are using manipulation in response to a post calling you out for it.  You know it doesn't work on someone that can see through your posts, right? 

16
Flat Earth General / Re: SR71 Pilot Observations
« on: October 20, 2015, 07:19:51 PM »
I don't see how this one change things over viewing the suns apparent motion from a fixed position.  I have been on trans-Pacific flights going both ways and the duration of daylight is different than if you weren't moving.  I don't see how this wouldn't hold in the FE model.

17
Also, TheEngineer isn't a FE'er, and I don't believe he has ever said satellites don't exist.

This, my good sir, is heresy!

Okay...

It is fairly obvious; I figured it out fairly quickly.

18
The Engineer  This is highly off-topic, but so is everything else in this thread.

You say "GPS does not require satellites."  Oh, really!

and you call yourself TheEngineer! 
What other system could give that information anywhere on the earth's surface. 
Don't give me rubbish about Decca, Loran or balloons. 
As well all the reception characteristics point to frequencies in the expected range 1575.42 MHz and 1227.60 MHz for the original GPS and around 1.602 GHz and 1.246 GHz for GLONASS.
The expected satellites are shaded by walls. 
As a passenger in an aircraft, GPS only works very close to a window and only receives the satellites in the small part of the sky that is visible.
The tiny antennae in a handheld GPS also implies a frequency in the GHz range!

I have yet to get any comments on how this http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/smallc.html?area=6&element=1&time=201510202230 is produced.  It is near enough to "real-time", and can display infra-red (in false colour of course) or visible light (colour or BW) and does show currently observable cloud patterns (at least in the Eastern Hemisphere).  Yes, when you select animation the clouds do move!

Yes, I know!  Stratollites, Pseudolites, Balloons or high altitude aircraft.  Do you really believe that there could ever be enough to cover the remote areas of Australia, Siberia, the oceans or Antarctica.

I will have to grant you one thing!  Almost all pictures from space are CGI.  How else could digital data from satellites get displayed.  That does not mean that it is false!

ExEngineer

Always read what TheEngineer says carefully.  "GPS does not require satellites." is not the same as "GPS does not use satellites."  You can triangulate locations using ground-based towers.  Law enforcement does this to locate a cell phone.  I have a feeling he actually works for Garmin (or similar GPS company). 

Also, TheEngineer isn't a FE'er, and I don't believe he has ever said satellites don't exist.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of gravity
« on: October 20, 2015, 02:38:37 PM »
Gravity/gravitation seems to be a popular topic on here.  There are multiple threads active on the topic.

Here is an experiment that most people can do as long as you have a smart phone.

Modern smart phones come with an accelerometer in them.  An accelerometer measures proper acceleration.  Now, go search your app store for an accelerometer app, there should be a free one available.  Now open up the app and place it on a flat surface that is level with the ground such as your countertop.  Mine shows an acceleration in the Z direction of 9.80 m/s2.  This is proof that the reason we don't float off the surface of the Earth is due to this acceleration. 

20
Quote
Also, funny thing is that I wasn't wrong here either.  I didn't even realize you were using GR until half way through our conversation.
So your initial instinct was wrong.  Ok.


Yes, that I will freely admit.  I was in a concurrent discussion with a guy claiming that gravitation is actually caused by air pressure.  I was on simple mode. 

Quote
Quote
I still haven't figured out why you are even here.
Why do you care?


The human psyche intrigues me.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 20, 2015, 05:08:29 AM »
I'll repost this nugget:

Gravitation indirectly causes acceleration. 

Stand on a fixed surface within a gravitational field, you will experience an acceleration.

Stand on a fixed surface outside a gravitational field, you will not experience an acceleration.

TheEngineer obviously ignored it since it was accurate and doesn't fit his agenda.
What agenda?  Accuracy?  Because I'm pretty sure I've stated that same thing in this very thread.  Here, let me help you out:

No, we are already accelerating, due to the mechanical resistance of the Earth pushing on us.  Hence, the non-inertial frame of reference.
Not sure what it is you are trying to do here, but you are failing at it.

No, you missed the point of my post and your post does not address the same thing.  You stated that gravitation does not cause an acceleration.  I clearly pointed out that it does indirectly.  I have a feeling you are the type of guy that says someone that got hit by a bus dies because their heart stopped beating.  While technically accurate, ignores the true cause of death.  Are you that literal of a thinker?  As far as your agenda?  Manipulation. 

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 06:20:18 PM »
Why do you need to leave Earth to prove it?  It predates space flight.  You can observe how planets and moons move from Earth to show that GR accurately predicts their motions.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 05:09:37 PM »
Einstein isn't smarter than either of us He was creative and loved  theorizing. Using IMAGINATION, he created a theory. Some of his work has been disproved by others, hes man, hes fallible and flawed like us all. If you are to trust anyone TRUST YOURSELF.

I don't know you, maybe you are smarter than him.  General relativity has not been disproved.  That is the subject here.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 05:00:50 PM »
If you prefer Newtonian mechanics (which is simpler to understand) to explain why an orbiting object doesn't fall into the object it is orbiting, you will need to introduce the two fictitious forces of gravity and centrifugal force.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 04:56:58 PM »
Okay, but Einstein was smarter than both of us, so I will trust him.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 04:30:41 PM »
let me get this straight, time and space are woven in a fabric. this fabric then is then extended in only a 2 dimension direction not up and down? pull a fabric tight and put some pool balls on it. they all will gravitate towards each other at the center of the fabric but yet the universe doesn't work this way. It still doesn't make sense to me.

No, it is in 3 dimensions (technically 4 with time).  Yeah, it is hard to visualize.  Here's a way to think about it, ever seen the flight path of a long flight on a flat map?  It isn't straight, it curves towards the pole.  Now look at the flight path on a curved map (globe), the flight path is now straight.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 03:49:21 PM »
Yes, you come back down.  Gravitation is caused by distortions/curvatures in space time due to mass.  When you jump, you impart a force on the Earth, causing you to leave the surface of the Earth.  However, other than air resistance, there are no other forces acting on you.  The surface of the Earth accelerates up to you due to these distortions.  This is based on the General Theory of Relativity by Einstein.  Newton's laws of gravity are a bit outdated and are not actually what is happening, but you can still use them to calculate simple things like how long will it take to land if you jump out off a building.  Newton's theory falls apart when dealing with speeds near the speed of light and in strong gravitation.  For example, there were discrepancies in Mercury's orbit using Newton's theory, Einstein's theory reconciles that.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: October 19, 2015, 03:33:30 PM »
if sun moves toward center of galaxy or where ever our solar system is moving and during our revolution around the sun we are in contrast movement to the suns direction. the sun should leave us behind like two vehicles going opposite directions on the highway.

Why?  The sun has a pretty strong gravitational field.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 03:27:25 PM »
Gravity isn't a force.  An object in orbit is in free fall and has no forces acting on it.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Gravity works or doesn't work
« on: October 19, 2015, 03:03:59 PM »
Why would planet 2 lose kinetic energy?  There are no forces acting on it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7