Wiki Critique: Equivalence principle (sic)

Please reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Equivalence+Principle#Problems_With_quot_Gravity_quot_.

If you want to read about physics, don't consult this page. It's atrocious. From getting the formula for Newton’s Law wrong to making just plain wrong claims, it runs the gambit for bad science. It’s no wonder the FEW isn’t used by anyone. It’s more wrong than right.
Let’s start with the formula. It’s the product of the masses and not the sum. The masses have to be spherically symmetric. The constant G isn’t defined under FET.

The Equivalence Principle doesn’t say what this entry says it does. The EP is true only at a point. You can detect that we’re not being accelerated by the UA as opposed to standard gravity by simple experiments, including simply watching the tides. The UA is false and everyone should know that by now.

Overall, this entry is horrible and should be deleted.

including simply watching the tides

I've watched the tides. I've never seen anything proving the existence of "gravity".

Quote

including simply watching the tides

I've watched the tides. I've never seen anything proving the existence of "gravity".

I guess tides just magically follow the moon around.

Glad we got that sorted.

According to FET, tides are provoked by the tilting of the disc of the world.

My question is, do all FE'ers agree on this?

According to FET, tides are provoked by the tilting of the disc of the world.

My question is, do all FE'ers agree on this?

No. Because

i) it's a dumb idea
ii) getting all FEers to agree on something is like herding cats.

Right there, in the first paragraph, you find the first and worst mistake of all: they forgot the word "locally".

This might seem to a Relativity illiterate as useless nitpicking, but it is the difference between real science and cheap philosophy.

If you get into a closed box, with no possibility of seeing or detecting anything outside the box, the principle holds. But as soon as you have a scenario where you can see the effect of gravitation in different (not local) places the whole equivalence principle ceases to hold. For example, when the Earth, Moon and Sun interact with a very large ocean, the ocean does not fit into the "locally" part of the principle, and unsurprisingly does not act as if it was just accelerated in one direction.

Similarly, in the Cavendish experiment, the interaction of the gravitational forces of Earth and each of the weights is clearly distinguishable from a single acceleration in one direction.

Also, if you are measuring the location of Earth, Sun and any planet, you will see that the gravitational pull is clearly distinguishable from a single acceleration in one direction.

And this is just a very short list of cases where there is no locality and gravitational pull is clearly distinguishable from acceleration.

Quote from: Kira-SY on September 07, 2010, 07:25:54 AM

According to FET, tides are provoked by the tilting of the disc of the world.

My question is, do all FE'ers agree on this?

No. Because

i) it's a dumb idea
ii) getting all FEers to agree on something is like herding cats.

And iii) if you have ever walked with a large, shallow tray filled with water you know that once the water starts accumulating on one side of the tray the weight accumulates on that side and it becomes very difficult to level it again. If we were in a flat Earth with huge oceans, the Earth would have already toppled.

One more thing:

The wiki author(s) appeal to authority instead of making a little bit of science. I do not know whether Isaac Newton disliked the idea of forces at astronomical distances before or after studying the subject, but it is totally irrelevant none the less.

If you can predict phenomena that cannot be predicted with other models by accepting forces at a distance, then you have to accept the existence of forces at a distance, whether Newton liked or disliked the idea. And if your alternate theory is Relativity, then you have to accept, again, the real effect by which two objects attract each other in a way that is indistinguishable to the one Newton defined unless your objects are moving at relativistic speeds.

And don't forget that all forces act at a distance. Whether your sensibilities are put to the test with forces acting at nanometers, or meters, or light years every force acts at a distance and you will have to accept it.

Quote

including simply watching the tides

I've watched the tides. I've never seen anything proving the existence of "gravity".

Your inabilities and shortcoming, numerous they may be, are not of interest to any one here.

Did any one claim that the tides prove the existence of gravity?

I claim that the tides demonstrate that the UA is false, as it can not explain the tidal nature of gravity.

One more thing:

The wiki author(s) appeal to authority instead of making a little bit of science. I do not know whether Isaac Newton disliked the idea of forces at astronomical distances before or after studying the subject, but it is totally irrelevant none the less.

If you can predict phenomena that cannot be predicted with other models by accepting forces at a distance, then you have to accept the existence of forces at a distance, whether Newton liked or disliked the idea. And if your alternate theory is Relativity, then you have to accept, again, the real effect by which two objects attract each other in a way that is indistinguishable to the one Newton defined unless your objects are moving at relativistic speeds.

And don't forget that all forces act at a distance. Whether your sensibilities are put to the test with forces acting at nanometers, or meters, or light years every force acts at a distance and you will have to accept it.

Well said. Thank you.

According to FET, tides are provoked by the tilting of the disc of the world.

But even that can't be right because the Earth would have to bend in places; tides don't appear in their correct locations when described in that kind of model.

Quote from: Kira-SY on September 07, 2010, 07:25:54 AM

According to FET, tides are provoked by the tilting of the disc of the world.

But even that can't be right because the Earth would have to bend in places; tides don't appear in their correct locations when described in that kind of model.

Worse yet, that would screw the pooch on Earths Ocean currents lol. And I would love to see them explain the flow of the Mississippi River under that model lol.

Please reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Equivalence+Principle#Problems_With_quot_Gravity_quot_.

If you want to read about physics, don't consult this page. It's atrocious. From getting the formula for Newton’s Law wrong, to making just plain wrong claims, it runs the gambit for bad science. It’s no wonder the FEW isn’t used by anyone. It’s more wrong than right.
Let’s start with the formula. It’s the product of the masses and not the sum. The masses have to be spherically symmetric. The constant G isn’t defined under FET.

The Equivalence Principle doesn’t say what this entry says it does. The EP is true only at a point. You can detect that we’re not being accelerated by the UA as opposed to standard gravity by simple experiments, including simply watching the tides. The UA is false and everyone should know that by now.

Overall, this entry is horrible and should be deleted.

Fixed.

ii) getting all FEers to agree on something is like herding cats.

You were saying?

Quote from: Crustinator on September 07, 2010, 07:33:25 AM

ii) getting all FEers to agree on something is like herding cats.

You were saying?

Where in that video does it say that the successful herders were FEers? They looked RE'r to me