421

Flat Earth Debate / Re: corlis effect and Foucault pendulum.

« on: October 07, 2008, 04:48:09 PM »

you wonīt get answers on certain questions here

422

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the wind (ok i lied THIS is the last topic post of today)

« on: October 07, 2008, 04:33:51 PM »

we have to split this up: the weather we experience is not influenced by the coriolis effect and more or less unpredictable. the wind in the upper atmosphere layers are mainly caused by the coriolis effet and well predictable.

423

Flat Earth Debate / Re: corlis effect and Foucault pendulum.

« on: October 07, 2008, 04:26:10 PM »

one moment please: my post was completely put out of context.

tom bishop said that the gravity of stars could cause the movement of the pendulum.

my answer:
"may i remind you that the gravitational pull lowers with 1/r^2. these stars would need to be very close to compensate the influence of the sun (if the sun is counted as a star)"

ski:
"The sun and the stars are much closer (though smaller) in FET than accepted RET."

and then i said that ominous sentece.  i wanted to put out that if stars are much nearer and smaller than in ret they would for sure have less mass in order of not becoming black holes. that would limit their influence on the pendulum to an negligable extend. so stars influencing the pendulum donīt seem to be a correct assumption. i never said anything about stars in ret.

424

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters

« on: October 07, 2008, 01:49:18 PM »

good point, rotational inertia has to be conserved.

425

Flat Earth Debate / Re: corlis effect and Foucault pendulum.

« on: October 07, 2008, 01:08:32 PM »

How do they ensure the resultant force is due to gravitation and not the casimir effect?

would you please explain in what way the casimir effect could affect a pendulum?

It wouldn't.  That was in response to a post about the cavendish that was deleted.

ah, ok didnīt see that post.

426

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters

« on: October 07, 2008, 01:03:34 PM »

You somehow know that since time immemorial the moon has always shown the same face to the earth?

but what on earth- sorry on moon - could cause it to flip

427

Flat Earth Debate / Re: corlis effect and Foucault pendulum.

« on: October 07, 2008, 01:01:44 PM »

The sun and the stars are much closer (though smaller) in FET than accepted RET.

thatīs no problem for me, smaller stars=less mass= less gravity

428

Flat Earth Debate / Re: corlis effect and Foucault pendulum.

« on: October 07, 2008, 12:54:22 PM »

Match's Principle explains that if the earth was still & the all the stars went around the Earth than the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulam.  As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

may i remind you that the gravitational pull lowers with 1/r^2. these stars would need to be very close to compensate the influence of the sun (if the sun is counted as a star)

429

Flat Earth Debate / Re: corlis effect and Foucault pendulum.

« on: October 07, 2008, 12:26:31 PM »

How do they ensure the resultant force is due to gravitation and not the casimir effect?

would you please explain in what way the casimir effect could affect a pendulum?

430

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What force motivates the Sun and Moon?

« on: October 07, 2008, 10:35:12 AM »

Is it possible to explain the gravitation with dark matter at the center of the moon and suns orbits?

it would be possible but perhaps you should talk to obl as gravity is only a fictious force. if that is true it would not explain it. btw dark matter has never been seen (for obvious reasons) so its existence is not 100% sure.

431

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What force motivates the Sun and Moon?

« on: October 07, 2008, 08:44:02 AM »

What we feel as the "force of gravity" on the ground is basically us undergoing constant proper acceleration.

More on fictitious forces:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18178.msg321837#msg321837

i know, does anyone read my posts let alone understanding them?
sometimes what re calls gravity appears in a way making it impossible to be caused by the earth accelarating upwards. i donīt deny that accelaration would cause a fictious force pulling everything to the ground. but it canīt  create a fictious force pulling things sideways as gravity is supposed to do in the cavendish experiment.

432

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What force motivates the Sun and Moon?

« on: October 07, 2008, 07:53:57 AM »

#1: it would go around in circles but then you need some sort of force that bends the time-space continuum. maybe gravitation?

Gravitation is not a force.

#2gravitation occurs everywhere, correct. a fictious force only occurs in distinct directions depending on the direction the non-inertial system accelerates to. small example: letīs say the earth is an inertial system.  youīre stting in a car driving in circles (non inertial system). do you feel a fictious force pulling you upwards?

No, I don't. Also, the surface of the Earth is not an inertial system.

yeah, gravitation is not a force, it is a potential. but you need some sort of force to bend space.
that earth is not an inertial system is clear to me too. i only made that assumption to make it easier. no matter where the car moves, there wonīt be a force  upwards. the only thing i wanted to illustrate is:
according to fe earth does a 1 dimensional accelarated movement. in this case the resulting fictious force is only one dimensional, too. and itīs vector goes opposite to the vector of accelaration. thatīs basic physics. the cavendish experiment shows that a force which points parallel to the earthīs surface. so it canīt be an fictious force resulting from an upward accelaration. 

433

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What force motivates the Sun and Moon?

« on: October 07, 2008, 07:18:27 AM »

no force = no rotation (you need a centripetal force)

Wrong. Try visualising space as a two-dimensional sheet of paper. Now cut out a strip of that paper and tape the ends together to form a loop. If there were an object travelling in a straight line through space, would it not go around in circles?

and: if gravitation would only occur in non inertial systems it would depend on the direction the system is accelarating. the buildup of the cavendish experiment wouldnīt work cause there some sort of force appears which is not pointing in the opposite direction of the accelaration.

Gravitation occurs everywhere. Gravity is a fictitious force which is created by the transformation of a non-inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.

#1: it would go around in circles but then you need some sort of force that bends the time-space continuum. maybe gravitation?

#2gravitation occurs everywhere, correct. a fictious force only occurs in distinct directions depending on the direction the non-inertial system accelerates to. small example: letīs say the earth is an inertial system.  youīre stting in a car driving in circles (non inertial system). do you feel a fictious force pulling you upwards?

434

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What force motivates the Sun and Moon?

« on: October 07, 2008, 06:58:06 AM »

If you are referring to what is keeping the heavens rotating, there is no force.

no force = no rotation (you need a centripetal force)

and: if gravitation would only occur in non inertial systems it would depend on the direction the system is accelarating. the buildup of the cavendish experiment wouldnīt work cause there some sort of force appears which is not pointing in the opposite direction of the accelaration.

435

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What force motivates the Sun and Moon?

« on: October 06, 2008, 05:49:08 PM »

Its just centripetal force. No gravity at all.

that really made my day, big lol. you donīt need gravity to provide a circular trajectory. every force directed towards the middle of the circle (=centripetal) will do the job. but you need something that causes the force. perhaps god holding a rope with the sun tied at it. but only for the record: gravity would work as well and looks better.

the energy question: letīs assume a perfect vacuum. the vector of the force and the vector of the velocity are ortogonal (perfect circle). no physical work is done so you donīt need energy to sustain the rotation (ofc you need to start it). afaik fet needs something like aether.then we have no perfect vacuum. unless the aether is a superfluid matter (and even then) it causes rubbing (i hope itīs the correct word) what would slow the movement. in this case you would need energy to sustain the movement.

sustaining an accelerated movement like fe needs to create our 9,8N/kg would need a huge amount of energy even in an perfect vacuum. atm iīm too lazy to do some calculations but the amount is big. really big.

436

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The icewall and global warming

« on: October 06, 2008, 10:32:47 AM »

[

Well no not really, it's a hypothetical construct designed to evade questions like "Why doesn't the sea spill out into outer space". Just like your Sky Mirrors. And the bendy light. And the Universal Accelerator. And the "Shadow Object". And the "Anti-Moon". And the wobble. And Dark Energy. And the Dark Energy Field. And the Gears In The Freaking Sky.

Or the RE hypothetical construct of gravity?

sorry for being a bit ot:it doesnīt really matter if gravity or a round earth exist. the physics behind these theories are able to explain every single phenomenon you encouter in the world. all these theories do is providing good and true predictions. the purpose of a theory is not providing an exact picture of reality in first place. we believe a theory is true if all the predictions that are based on the theory match our "daily" experience.

437

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"

« on: October 06, 2008, 09:37:16 AM »

hmm all you need to measure gravity discrepancys is a pendulum.

438

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"

« on: October 05, 2008, 01:48:01 PM »

i did, sorry, my fault

439

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"

« on: October 05, 2008, 01:23:05 PM »

everything i told is perfectly in line with einstein: observed from the inside(forgot to add that in my last post) of a given system all clocks show the same time. you canīt have two timelines in one system. if you observe an elevator from the outside the two clocks will show a different time, not when observed from the inside!

and this is not the case when two clocks are placed on earth.

440

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"

« on: October 05, 2008, 12:46:34 PM »

two clocks in the same elevator - on at the top, one at he bottom - will always show the same time cause they are in the same system/encounter the same accelaration.

two clocks on earth - one at sea level, one on a mountain - show different times. proven by experiments. obvoiusly they are in not in the same system/ donīt ecounter the same accelaration

441

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"

« on: October 05, 2008, 12:06:24 PM »

hi @ all 

afaik the main part of the differences in gravitational force at different locations on earth is in explained in re the following way: because of the rotation the earth is streched at the equator. at locations near the equator the gravitational pull is weaker cause of the bigger distance to the centre.

btw: there is a difference between an elevator and a (round) earth that does not accelerate: it doesnīt matter where (bottom, top) i put a clock in the elevator, it does matter where i put it on earth (sea level, mountains)