North pole weight difference

  • 42 Replies
  • 15307 Views
?

Jesus Crotch

  • 1250
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2008, 07:48:04 AM »
In FE: you weigh a little more on the north "pole" because ________________________________________________

When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.

And?  If FET is correct, the entire surface is the leading edge.  So, one would weigh the least at the peak of Everest and the most at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is what you are saying, and that does not coincide with observed phenomena.
"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power." - Robert G. Ingersoll

http://theflatearthsociety.me

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45085
  • +87/-119
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2008, 07:51:04 AM »
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?

Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself.  Or were you looking for a more specific answer.

Unless you are near the event horizon of a black hole, would this be a measurable effect?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2008, 08:19:34 AM »
When an object accelerates, the leading edge accelerates slower than the tailing edge.
Why?

Relativistic effects inherant in acceleration itself.  Or were you looking for a more specific answer.

Please.

When an object, whether it is an elevator, rocket, flat earth, what have you, accelerates, time is dilated more the further from the source of the acceleration you go.  So, a clock at a higher elevation relative to the source will run slow compared to one at a lower elevation.  This, along with length contraction,  causes the dv/dt to be skewed based on the gamma factor.  I have a good shortcut somewhere you might want to take a look at, I'll try to find it later.

And?  If FET is correct, the entire surface is the leading edge.  So, one would weigh the least at the peak of Everest and the most at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is what you are saying, and that does not coincide with observed phenomena.

Are you saying that you do not weigh less on Everest than at a lower elevation?

Unless you are near the event horizon of a black hole, would this be a measurable effect?

We're talking about acceleration, not gravitation.  So what you mean to ask is "Unless you are near the speed of light, would this be a measurable effect" in which case I say, yes, that we would be going fast enough by now to take relativistic effects into consideration.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2008, 08:21:10 AM by Robbyj »
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2008, 08:23:38 AM »
We're talking about acceleration, not gravitation.  So what you mean to ask is "Unless you are near the speed of light, would this be a measurable effect" in which case I say, yes, that we would be going fast enough by now to take relativistic effects into consideration.

I thought that for our local frame of reference we were traveling no where near the speed of light.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2008, 08:30:28 AM »
Gravitational variation in FE is caused by the gravitation of the stars.

The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2008, 08:31:20 AM »
We're talking about acceleration, not gravitation.  So what you mean to ask is "Unless you are near the speed of light, would this be a measurable effect" in which case I say, yes, that we would be going fast enough by now to take relativistic effects into consideration.

I thought that for our local frame of reference we were traveling no where near the speed of light.

You are right in the sense that we are no closer to reaching the speed of light than we were when said acceleration started because it would take an infinite amount of time to reach that. However, relative to the inertial reference frame outside of our own we would be traveling at some percentage of c that would be impossible to calculate.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #36 on: October 07, 2008, 08:35:33 AM »
You are right in the sense that we are no closer to reaching the speed of light than we were when said acceleration started because it would take an infinite amount of time to reach that. However, relative to the inertial reference frame outside of our own we would be traveling at some percentage of c that would be impossible to calculate.

Seem to me that would create a lot of problems if the relativistic effects were that observable.  This would imply that the passenger on Einstein's cosmic elevator ride would be able to observe the effects of the velocity of the elevator.  Doesn't that make the Equivalence Principle that UA would be indistinguishable from Einsteinian gravity wrong?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #37 on: October 07, 2008, 08:45:29 AM »
No, that would make it completely correct.  We can do the same expirement in a gravitational field and recieve the same results.  A clock on an airplane in flight has a measurable difference in rate than one on the ground.  That's the beauty of the equivalence principle.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #38 on: October 07, 2008, 08:48:42 AM »
No, that would make it completely correct.  We can do the same expirement in a gravitational field and recieve the same results.  A clock on an airplane in flight has a measurable difference in rate than one on the ground.  That's the beauty of the equivalence principle.

Yes, but the noticeable difference in rate won't show near relativistic speeds.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #39 on: October 07, 2008, 08:51:56 AM »
Sure it would.  Why do you say otherwise? 
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #40 on: October 07, 2008, 08:58:44 AM »
Sure it would.  Why do you say otherwise? 

I am not sure.  This must be one of those spots where logic doesn't necessarily apply to relativity, and why it gets so confusing to a majority of people.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #41 on: October 07, 2008, 09:05:54 AM »
The gravitation may be because the moon "orbits" (actually moves) in a circle around the north pole and the moons gravitation or EM field attracts visitors to the north pole slightly upward. Of course this cannot be proven because NASA denies us the rights.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: North pole weight difference
« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2008, 09:10:11 AM »
Sure it would.  Why do you say otherwise? 

I am not sure.  This must be one of those spots where logic doesn't necessarily apply to relativity, and why it gets so confusing to a majority of people.

Possibly.  Keep in mind that only relative velocity is meaningful.  To us, nothing at all would change in our frame of refence regardless of our velocity, which is manifested in the form of the speed of light being constant.  Only a change in acceleration would cause an observable change.  Here is a pretty good expanation of what I am talking about if you want to look at it.  It's fairly concise and gets the point across graphically:  http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?