some essential problems . . .

  • 24 Replies
  • 4502 Views
some essential problems . . .
« on: March 07, 2007, 08:56:55 AM »
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2007, 10:34:14 AM »
If you knew anything about physics, you would know that acceleration warps space-time in such a way that it creates a uniform gravitational field upon the accelerating body and any bodies being accelerated with it. This is all explained by Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. Gravity and gravitation through acceleration are exactly the same.

For more information see http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf

    "However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is a rather difficult idea to accept."

For example, when you suddenly accelerate in a car, your head is slightly pushed back into the seat. This is a daily occurrence that anyone can relate with. The mechanism for this apparent inertial force is the Equivalence Principle. Your car is actually bending space-time and creating a gravitational field on itself as a direct result of acceleration. The faster you accelerate, the stronger the gravitational field, the harder your head will be pushed into the seat.

Due to this uniform field of gravitation through acceleration, the results of the Cavendish Experiment would be exactly the same on FE as it would be on RE. The difference is, FE does not invoke a mysterious undiscovered particle called the Graviton to explain its universal gravitation. Its gravitation is purely a mechanical result from the acceleration of mass.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2007, 11:06:39 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2007, 11:34:24 AM »
1. Tom Bishop is right with the car analogy and about the Equivalence Principle. As he has read the Equivalence Principle many times and knows it as he knows his own face, I will not argue with him there.
2. The results of the Cavendish experiment would not be the same on a FE. If Tom Bishop understands the Cavendish Experiment, he would understand that the two balls one measures the gravitational force from are not accelerating locally, therefore they, respectively, would have no gravitational field. Therefore, it is logically permissable to assume there is a force attracting these two masses to one another, that force being what RE call gravity.
3. FE people like to claim gravity is false because noone has seen a graviton or knows exactly how gravity works. Well, FE people do not even know why we are accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. So what is the differance?

Correct me if I am wrong.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

?

Tom Bishop

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2007, 12:49:17 PM »
Quote
If Tom Bishop understands the Cavendish Experiment, he would understand that the two balls one measures the gravitational force from are not accelerating locally, therefore they, respectively, would have no gravitational field.

But the balls in the Cavendish Experiment are accelerating. They are sitting on the earth, which is itself accelerating upwards. We are all accelerating upwards with the earth. This acceleration causes each object on the earth to bend space-time in its vacinity. The more mass of an object, the greater it will bend space-time, the more gravitation it has.

The result is that each object on earth has it's own uniform gravitational pull due to its acceleration with the earth.

Quote
3. FE people like to claim gravity is false because noone has seen a graviton or knows exactly how gravity works. Well, FE people do not even know why we are accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. So what is the differance?

The difference is that the accelerating universe is observable through astronomical studies. Gravitons are simply hypothetical particles made up to fit observations.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2007, 01:16:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2007, 12:52:59 PM »
Quote
If Tom Bishop understands the Cavendish Experiment, he would understand that the two balls one measures the gravitational force from are not accelerating locally, therefore they, respectively, would have no gravitational field.

But the balls in the Cavendish Experiment are accelerating. They are sitting on the earth, which is itself accelerating upwards. We are all accelerating upwards with the earth. This acceleration causes each object on the earth to slightly bend space-time in its vacinity. The more mass of an object, the greater it will bend space-time, the more gravitation it has.

The result is that each object on earth has it's own uniform gravitational pull due to its acceleration with the earth.

Quote
3. FE people like to claim gravity is false because noone has seen a graviton or knows exactly how gravity works. Well, FE people do not even know why we are accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. So what is the differance?

The difference is that the accelerating universe is observable through astronomical studies. Gravitons are simply hypothetical particles made up to fit observations.

Sort of like the shadow object, except that doesnt fit observations.
Quote
In FE Literature there are three celestial bodies that inhabit the sky. The Sun. The Moon. And the Shadow Object.
Quote
You have performed an illegal operation. Tom Bishop will now shut down, you will lose all unsaved arguments.

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2007, 01:01:04 PM »
Quote
If Tom Bishop understands the Cavendish Experiment, he would understand that the two balls one measures the gravitational force from are not accelerating locally, therefore they, respectively, would have no gravitational field.

But the balls in the Cavendish Experiment are accelerating. They are sitting on the earth, which is itself accelerating upwards. We are all accelerating upwards with the earth. This acceleration causes each object on the earth to slightly bend space-time in its vacinity. The more mass of an object, the greater it will bend space-time, the more gravitation it has.

The result is that each object on earth has it's own uniform gravitational pull due to its acceleration with the earth.

Quote
3. FE people like to claim gravity is false because noone has seen a graviton or knows exactly how gravity works. Well, FE people do not even know why we are accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. So what is the differance?

The difference is that the accelerating universe is observable through astronomical studies. Gravitons are simply hypothetical particles made up to fit observations.

Thank you Sir TOm Bishop for replying.

Just one thought. The accelerating universe theory is based on the presense of Dark Matter. If you would have read the article you would have known this. There is no more evidence of dark matter existing then there is of gravitons existing. Thereby, I can conclude, that your statement that gravity is false because of the lack of observation evidence of gravitons is null because the accelerTING UNIVERSE THEORY RELIES ON DARK MATTER WHICH(sorry for the caps lock) is as real as gravitons. Meaning neither have observational evidence, so according to you, they are both flase.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2007, 01:10:48 PM »
But the balls in the Cavendish Experiment are accelerating. They are sitting on the earth, which is itself accelerating upwards. We are all accelerating upwards with the earth. This acceleration causes each object on the earth to slightly bend space-time in its vacinity. The more mass of an object, the greater it will bend space-time, the more gravitation it has.

[quote/]

TOm Bishop,
If the accelerating earth causes space-time to bend as the Equivalence Principle states, and causes gravitation, then, would it not be impossible to fall off the earth by just walking off the earth because the earth has such a strong gravitational force that it would just pull you back?
You said that since the two balls you use to measure the force of gravitation in the Cavendish Experiment are also accelerating, so they too have a gravitational field. ANd usually when you measure the gravitation, you have the two masses side to side. This would leave me to believe that gravitation could be felt from the sides also. So, I conclude that the sides of the FE must have gravitation also if the two balls do.
So therefore you cannot fall off the FE.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I wrote that as I thought of it, so it may be a little rough. Sorry ofr the inconveniance
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2007, 02:53:48 PM »
If the Earth was indeed flat, it would be impossible to fly around the equator and meet every country thereof, correct?

Incorrect, the Earth wouldn't be flat as represented by world maps (rectangular), the world would be circular looking like the UN flag.

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2007, 03:11:29 PM »
Thank you Sir TOm Bishop for replying.

Just one thought. The accelerating universe theory is based on the presense of Dark Matter. If you would have read the article you would have known this. There is no more evidence of dark matter existing then there is of gravitons existing. Thereby, I can conclude, that your statement that gravity is false because of the lack of observation evidence of gravitons is null because the accelerTING UNIVERSE THEORY RELIES ON DARK MATTER WHICH(sorry for the caps lock) is as real as gravitons. Meaning neither have observational evidence, so according to you, they are both flase.
The acclerating universe doesn't necessitate dark matter at all. It could be a hypothesis as to the force that's pushing up, but there are many other theories that go along with it just fine that don't involve pseudo-particles such as gravitons.

~D-Draw

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2007, 05:03:35 PM »
I understand the principles of space-time only slightly, so this might sound kind of whacked:
If the Earth was indeed flat, it would be impossible to fly around the equator and meet every country thereof, correct? And reading into this about it being impossible to fall off because the upward force of the FE is so strong, it would pull you back on? That would mean it would have some of the properties of a vacuum, right? So if the vacuum could work from the inside, like a fan, and keep us in by blowing inwards, then wouldn't it be possible to bring things in from space? All known accounts of meteorites came from above in different places around the world, and having it appear from the side violates the upward movement of the earth, because as soon as it enters, it would fall to the ground because the vacuum disrupted the movement of the meteor.
In addition, how would we have our seasons with how the FE is designed? If the sun is simply moving away and back, then wouldn't we feel it a lot more, and wouldn't it have irregularities? Ice ages are frequent, but have we once had a heat age? If it's possible for the sun to move away enough for an ice age, why haven't we had a heat age?
Vacuum?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2007, 06:28:54 PM »
The Equivalence Principle is only valid locally. Obviously no one here has any clue what that means. What it means is that there is no way to tell the difference between a gravitational field or an accelerated reference frame . . . as long as you stay at the same point in space. The gravitational field around the earth is NOT uniform. I have measured that myself using a simple reversible pendulum. Some places it is 9.81 m/s^2. Going into a deep well, it can climb as high as 9.83m/s^2. Climbing high above the surface of the earth, it can go to 9.78 m/s^2. This can not be explained by a simple accelerated reference frame, where the field at all those places should be exactly the same. Part of my doctorate was in differential geometry (general relativity). I know far more about the equivalence principle than most anyone on this website. It only holds locally . . . but we are free to do our experiments all across the surface of the earth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2007, 07:57:47 PM »
The Equivalence Principle is only valid locally.
Yep, that's what I've said.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

dAntonio

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2007, 08:18:15 PM »
No FE has yet answered the simplest problem posed by kinereoj.  Why does the apparent acceleration change with height?  Yes Tom Bishop, the constant acceleration would create a uniform field.  The problem kinereoj is raising (well one of many), is that the field is not uniform.  Why not?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2007, 05:20:09 AM »
No FE has yet answered the simplest problem posed by kinereoj.  Why does the apparent acceleration change with height?  Yes Tom Bishop, the constant acceleration would create a uniform field.  The problem kinereoj is raising (well one of many), is that the field is not uniform.  Why not?

The other critical point made by him is that there is no way you can differentiate an accelerating car from the gravity pull unless you look out the window!. If you see things in your frame of reference and others at the same time you have to do some scientific discovery to get a reasonable explanation of how the two frames of reference coexist.

You have to look at the stars, planets and such, not just think that if what you feel under your tush is acceleration, is has to be acceleration.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2007, 07:47:26 AM »
Please ignore Tom Bishop in this thread; to be frank, he's talking out of his ass. Almost nothing he's said agrees with the FE consensus.

kinereoj: You've made three threads on this same topic. Pick one, so I can lock the other two.
the cake is a lie

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2007, 08:18:10 PM »
I have been on many sites such as this one.. all who claim that the earth is flat, and their reasoning for the star's rotations is that the earth is in a fixed position,(also that the world rests on the back of a turtle, but i'll give u the benifit of the doubt on that one) yet then you say tthat the earth is accelerating upwards to simulate gravity... choose one or accept the truth for what it is

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2007, 08:29:08 PM »
Only ancient Hindus believe the earth is held up by turtles and elephants.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2007, 08:52:02 PM »
that was why im giving you the benifit of the doubt on that point, as i said above. but my real questions are not the ones in parenthesis

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2007, 09:15:05 PM »
The earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, upwards, constantly.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2007, 09:22:04 PM »
ok, in physics accelerating means increasing your speed, which, according to that, and if the earth is truly accelrating, we would eventually reach the speed of light, which according to einsteins theory of reletivity would, in theory, make us go back in time...

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2007, 09:33:21 PM »
No, according to Relativity, we can accelerate forever, and never reach the speed of light.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2007, 09:39:21 PM »
no, light has a fixed speed in a vacuum, we can go that speed, but the light around us might change it's speed ever hear of 3*10^8?

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2007, 09:40:50 PM »
ok, in physics accelerating means increasing your speed, which, according to that, and if the earth is truly accelrating, we would eventually reach the speed of light, which according to einsteins theory of reletivity would, in theory, make us go back in time...

You need to use Lorentz velocity transformations when going some significant fraction of "c".  Please, stop using Galilean velocity transformations.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2007, 09:44:03 PM »
no, light has a fixed speed in a vacuum, we can go that speed, but the light around us might change it's speed ever hear of 3*10^8?
Nice.  Contradict yourself in just a single sentence.  That's got to be a record.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: some essential problems . . .
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2007, 10:39:09 PM »
Only ancient Hindus believe the earth is held up by turtles and elephants.
Actually, you have altered this old Hindu myth by a ridiculous amount. I am Hindu...The Earth is not 'held up' by these things. It was just a myth about a mountain, where, to the people who created the myth, that WAS the world. Something to that effect. Completely not what is in the FAQ.