31

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: August 12, 2008, 09:26:10 PM »

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? 

The subject of this thread is a statement that Gravity is an illusion cause by inertial frame of reference.

Since that experiment would fail if that were the case, it seemed to me to be relevant.

So that experiment proves Einstein wrong?  How?

It doesn't - Einstein proved that it was impossible to distinguish via physical phenomena acceleration from gravity - they have the same effects.

However, that is not the same as saying that there *is* no such thing as gravity: If there were, the only way to reproduce the torque experiment (It has a formal name but I don't recall it at the moment) would be to introduce angular momentum into the system. However, since the torque is created simply by introducing a third known mass into the experiment, that fundamentally disproves the thesis.

Acceleration reproduces the effects of gravity, as predicted by Einstein, however straight line acceleration has verifiable effects that would be different from gravitational effects - there would be no (For instance) gravitational gradient within a system undergoing straight line acceleration.

CD

32

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do FE's explain this?

« on: August 12, 2008, 08:59:26 PM »

Gravitation provided by the heavens and varying densities of rock in the Earth itself.

Sorry - you're FAQ establishes definitively that there *is* no gravitation provided by the densities of the rock itself - if there were, a 12,000 wide cylinder would tend to collapse into a spherical shape.

CD

Not all FE'ers agree on everything. I believe that the Earth does have gravitation, but that there is also a strong repulsive force between objects with mass at extremely large distances, such that the Greater Ice Wall repels the rest of the Earth enough to balance the attractive gravitation. The Greater Ice Wall is much further away than the stars, so there is no repulsive force between us and the heavens.

You're a big fan of massively powerful forces that leave no sign that they're there aren't you?

CD

Yes I am. For instance, I feel certain that there will be some force of intelligence behind a RE argument one of these days.

But - with no personal experience of intelligence, how would you know?

33

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: August 12, 2008, 08:58:11 PM »

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? 

The subject of this thread is a statement that Gravity is an illusion cause by inertial frame of reference.

Since that experiment would fail if that were the case, it seemed to me to be relevant.

34

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight

« on: August 12, 2008, 08:54:43 PM »

Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely.

Fascinating.  Like what?

Easiest one? Stick a pole in the ground on a date when it leave no shadow at noon. Then stick a pole in the ground 500 miles away. Measure the shadow left by that pole on that date.

The rest is easy math. And, well, hiring camel drivers to pace out the 500 miles, but it worked for Eratosthenes.

Plus you can see different constellations in the sky depending on your latitude, longitude, and the time.

Plus you can actually see satellites overhead at night. With a low powered telescope, you can actually - y'know, *SEE* them.

Plus the field artillery has to take into account the curvature of the earths surface in order to hit it's targets.

Plus you can actually measure the curvature of the earth when measuring peak to peak heights on mountains.

Plus the distance of the horizon would be determined only by atmospheric density in a flat earth - and the horizon would always seem to be at exactly eye level no matter what your altitude - see level or mountain top (Do the thought experiment on this one).

Plus if you went 'around the world' on a flat earth you would neither lose nor gain a day.

Also, by extension, Jet Lag would be an impossibility.

Atomic Clocks on a flat earth would *not* show any difference in time measurement because of altitude - but do.

CD

35

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Got a prof ?

« on: August 12, 2008, 08:37:54 PM »

Apparently, they do it all for laughs.  ho ho, silly land lubbers, lets tell em it's shaped like a banana next!  ho ho! 

I'm gonna tell y'all a secret.

Actually - we all know. It's no big secret, we just sort out a few nerds in school every year and tell *them* the world is round. And then we mess with them, drop a few clues here and there. Your girlfriend knows, so do your parents, we watch you all post over the secret webcams we have in all your Monitors and TV sets. There are train rides to the "Feed the astronomically large Turtle" exhibits every half hour.

True story man.

CD

36

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do FE's explain this?

« on: August 12, 2008, 08:31:10 PM »

Gravitation provided by the heavens and varying densities of rock in the Earth itself.

Sorry - you're FAQ establishes definitively that there *is* no gravitation provided by the densities of the rock itself - if there were, a 12,000 wide cylinder would tend to collapse into a spherical shape.

CD

Not all FE'ers agree on everything. I believe that the Earth does have gravitation, but that there is also a strong repulsive force between objects with mass at extremely large distances, such that the Greater Ice Wall repels the rest of the Earth enough to balance the attractive gravitation. The Greater Ice Wall is much further away than the stars, so there is no repulsive force between us and the heavens.

You're a big fan of massively powerful forces that leave no sign that they're there aren't you?

CD

37

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight

« on: August 12, 2008, 08:29:30 PM »

RE however you can prove and you can't disprove.

Prove it, then.

It's *your* theory, *you* prove it - State something that your EM accelerator would do that does *not* have the same effect that would be produced by the earth being round.

Of course we can't *disprove* the theory that physics includes a massive number of overly complicated field effects that, by odd coincidence, give the exact same subjective results as a simpler physics theory with only four forces all with well understood measurable effects, but if you posit such a theory, it's up to you to design a test that can distinguish it from the simple and concise theory.

Occam is killing kittens here - get a move on!

No. FELUNATIC claimed it was possible to prove RET, so I asked him to prove it. He has not yet done so.

Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely. You have a more interesting theory, you get to post a test that disproves it.

The Statement "I have a theory that explains why the earth *looks* rounded despite having no test that allows me to distinguish it from an earth that *is* rounded is like intelligent design, without being as smart"

Come up with a test. Occom is in UR house killin' UR kittens man - won't someone please think of the kittens!

38

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: August 12, 2008, 08:20:47 PM »

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

39

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Got a prof ?

« on: August 12, 2008, 05:04:52 PM »

The conspiracy only extends as far as the space agencies.  Rather than waste money on impossible space research and travel, the top people at all the space agencies just make up stuff and embezzle the funds for themselves.

This isn't true. Many major airlines and defense contractors are part of the self-same faction of the Conspiracy, and I'm fairly certain that there is a broader academic/scientific Conspiracy offshoot as well.

In fact, if you really stop to think about it, the sheer number of people who would have to be "in on it" is enormous.

Anyone who claims to have been in space
Anyone who has co-ordinated the missions of those who claim to have been in space.
Astronomers
Pretty much anyone space related
All commercial international airline pilots (and lets face it, probably ALL pilots)
Anyone involved with scientific research in Antarctica (and there's a lot....remember, they ALL have to be lying about the whole "six months of sunlight at a time" thing)
A large percentage of Geologists

And that's just the tip of the icewall

Oh - don't forget - *all* Ham Radio operators. Every last one of them can tell you the exact location of a number of satellites.

The one I read (In the FAQ I think) that I particularly like was how Dish Network and other satellite companies used dishes that told them if they weren't pointed correctly.

One wonders how the dishes could tell they weren't point correctly since, per the FAQ, there are no GPS satellites which they could use to determine that they weren't pointed correctly.

Being out in the boonies, I will happily testify that there are no 'secret' cables going into my farmhouse - I know, because I actually ran all my cables - no secret splices guys.

<G>

40

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight

« on: August 12, 2008, 04:55:20 PM »

RE however you can prove and you can't disprove.

Prove it, then.

It's *your* theory, *you* prove it - State something that your EM accelerator would do that does *not* have the same effect that would be produced by the earth being round.

Of course we can't *disprove* the theory that physics includes a massive number of overly complicated field effects that, by odd coincidence, give the exact same subjective results as a simpler physics theory with only four forces all with well understood measurable effects, but if you posit such a theory, it's up to you to design a test that can distinguish it from the simple and concise theory.

Occam is killing kittens here - get a move on!

41

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do FE's explain this?

« on: August 12, 2008, 04:23:45 PM »

Gravitation provided by the heavens and varying densities of rock in the Earth itself.

Sorry - you're FAQ establishes definitively that there *is* no gravitation provided by the densities of the rock itself - if there were, a 12,000 wide cylinder would tend to collapse into a spherical shape.

CD