« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Weather forecasting.

  • 192 Replies
  • 43274 Views
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #150 on: July 17, 2007, 05:17:01 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 17, 2007, 05:00:46 PM
Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 04:49:55 PM
Yes, gravity can be consider a fictitious force in certain FoRs, ignoring secondary effect, but this tenet of GR does not and indeed has, to my knowledge, never been held to conclude Einstein's "gravity as a force does not exist".
Sorry, but gravity is a fictitious force in all FoRs, including any that have 'secondary effects'.
We're all still waiting on the Einstein quote, pal. Be sure to explain to us how Wikipedia is wrong ( and you're right again!) by showing all of us the FoR with only fictitious forces that holds two people down on the opposite sides of the Earth at the same time. Boy, Wikipedia sure needs your help, doesn't it?!
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #151 on: July 17, 2007, 05:27:00 PM »
A non inertial frame of reference.
Logged


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

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #152 on: July 17, 2007, 05:47:38 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 17, 2007, 05:27:00 PM
A non inertial frame of reference.
Horse and feathers that they don't have? Wikipedia says that you have to consider gravity a force for at least one of the two. Just how do you argue that you're right and Wikipedia is wrong?
Logged
?

Iamaroundglobe

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #153 on: July 18, 2007, 04:58:57 AM »
Now i tend to disagree with you. When the rain hits the earths surface it becomes a sweet moistured nectar that which is later feasted on by mermans. Now If you tend to rub this nectar with i don't say a moreckular current then you will find that it gives us the ability to refract light, hence leaving us with the answer to your question.

Yours Truly
Professor Ned Sneebly.
Logged
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #154 on: July 18, 2007, 07:01:49 AM »
Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 05:47:38 PM
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 17, 2007, 05:27:00 PM
A non inertial frame of reference.
Horse and feathers that they don't have? Wikipedia says that you have to consider gravity a force for at least one of the two. Just how do you argue that you're right and Wikipedia is wrong?

In Euclidean Geometry there would need to be a force.  Einstein believed, however, that Euclidean Geometry was not an accurate way to view spacetime.  GR uses non-Euclidean Geometry.  Either you don't believe in GR or gravity is a force.  Since you have stated that you do believe in GR, gravity as a force does not exist.

In GR, spacetime is not straight (as it would be in Euclidean Geometry).  Instead it curves from mass and energy.  If you follow a 'straight' line (inertial) in a curved coordinate system (GR), then you may experience things that appear to be 'forces' but are not.  This is just because you're trying to explain something which relies on non-Euclidean Geometry in terms that work for Euclidean Geometry.
Logged
OMG!
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #155 on: July 18, 2007, 12:03:24 PM »
Quote from: CommonCents on July 18, 2007, 07:01:49 AM
Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 05:47:38 PM
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 17, 2007, 05:27:00 PM
A non inertial frame of reference.
Horse and feathers that they don't have? Wikipedia says that you have to consider gravity a force for at least one of the two. Just how do you argue that you're right and Wikipedia is wrong?

In Euclidean Geometry there would need to be a force.  Einstein believed, however, that Euclidean Geometry was not an accurate way to view spacetime.  GR uses non-Euclidean Geometry.  Either you don't believe in GR or gravity is a force.  Since you have stated that you do believe in GR, gravity as a force does not exist.

In GR, spacetime is not straight (as it would be in Euclidean Geometry).  Instead it curves from mass and energy.  If you follow a 'straight' line (inertial) in a curved coordinate system (GR), then you may experience things that appear to be 'forces' but are not.  This is just because you're trying to explain something which relies on non-Euclidean Geometry in terms that work for Euclidean Geometry.
You've made the same mistake as many, but GR does not conclude that "gravity as a force does not exist". It proposes that there are situations where gravity can be considered a fictitious force by changing of FoRs. It cannot and does not completely remove gravity as a real force. GR is insightful and useful, and I greatly appreciate its elegance and beauty. Einstein never said that gravity as a force does not exist.

Wikipedia (again):
As useful as the equivalence between gravitational and inertial effect might be, it does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. Notably, it cannot answer the following simple question: what keeps the people on the other side of the world from falling off? We might be able to explain gravity near our location on the Earth's surface as a fictitious force – as due to the fact that we have chosen a reference frame that is not in free fall. But a freely falling reference frame on our side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.

A more subtle manifestation of the same effect involves two bodies that are falling side by side towards the Earth. In a reference frame that is in free fall alongside these bodies, they appear to hover weightlessly – but not completely so: after all, if you look more closely, these bodies are not falling in the same direction, but towards the same point in space: the Earth's center of gravity. Because of this, there is a minute component of motion bringing the two bodies ever closer to each other (see the image at right).

Whenever bodies fall in different directions or at different rates due to differences in the strength and direction of gravitational forces, we are dealing with what are called tidal effects (since such differences in force are also responsible for the tides in the Earth's oceans). The equivalence between inertia and gravity cannot explain these tidal effects – it cannot explain the variation of the gravitational field from location to location.[9]
Logged
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #156 on: July 18, 2007, 12:19:56 PM »
You're failing to think non-Euclideanly...if that's a word.  GR IS non-Euclidean.  The force of 'gravity' is only needed to explain the phenomena in Euclidean Geometry.
Logged
OMG!
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #157 on: July 18, 2007, 12:42:56 PM »
Quote from: CommonCents on July 18, 2007, 12:19:56 PM
You're failing to think non-Euclideanly...if that's a word.  GR IS non-Euclidean.  The force of 'gravity' is only needed to explain the phenomena in Euclidean Geometry.
I fully understand non-Euclidean geometries. You fail to understand that Einstein's analogy cannot, and he freely admits this, remove gravity as a force in all situations. See the Wikipedia quote in my previous post in this thread.

This is really important to understand. GR does not say "gravity as a force does not exist." It says that in many FoRs the force of gravity can be considered to be a fictitious force by the shifting of FoRs.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #158 on: July 18, 2007, 12:44:41 PM »
No, it says it in all FoRs.  Please refer to your own article which was fine for you to use when you thought it supported your position, but now that it proves your ignorance, you claim is taken out of context.  Not to mention, this is the second time you've done this.
Logged


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

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #159 on: July 18, 2007, 12:49:36 PM »
If you are moving in a 'straight' line through a coordinate system, and this coordinate system is bent, your line will not be 'straight'  The fact that you cannot see with your own eyes the bending of the coordinate system does not mean it is not bending.  Because you cannot see the bending of the coordinate system you say "Well, something forced me in this direction.  I think I'll call this the force of gravity."


Hopefully that can put it in perspective for you.
Logged
OMG!
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #160 on: July 18, 2007, 12:53:45 PM »
Geodesics ftw!!
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #161 on: July 18, 2007, 12:57:31 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 18, 2007, 12:44:41 PM
No, it says it in all FoRs.  Please refer to your own article which was fine for you to use when you thought it supported your position, but now that it proves your ignorance, you claim is taken out of context.  Not to mention, this is the second time you've done this.
I'll keep quoting the Wikipedia article that disagrees with your statement until you answer the challenge.

Wikipedia
As useful as the equivalence between gravitational and inertial effect might be, it does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. Notably, it cannot answer the following simple question: what keeps the people on the other side of the world from falling off? We might be able to explain gravity near our location on the Earth's surface as a fictitious force – as due to the fact that we have chosen a reference frame that is not in free fall. But a freely falling reference frame on our side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.

A more subtle manifestation of the same effect involves two bodies that are falling side by side towards the Earth. In a reference frame that is in free fall alongside these bodies, they appear to hover weightlessly – but not completely so: after all, if you look more closely, these bodies are not falling in the same direction, but towards the same point in space: the Earth's center of gravity. Because of this, there is a minute component of motion bringing the two bodies ever closer to each other (see the image at right).

Whenever bodies fall in different directions or at different rates due to differences in the strength and direction of gravitational forces, we are dealing with what are called tidal effects (since such differences in force are also responsible for the tides in the Earth's oceans). The equivalence between inertia and gravity cannot explain these tidal effects – it cannot explain the variation of the gravitational field from location to location.[9]
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #162 on: July 18, 2007, 01:09:07 PM »
Geodesics.
Non Euclidean space.

In other words, General Relativity. 
Logged


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

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #163 on: July 18, 2007, 01:23:47 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 18, 2007, 01:09:07 PM
Geodesics.
Non Euclidean space.

In other words, General Relativity. 
Once again the evasive "horses and the feathers they don't have" ploy. You have the challenge. Describe the situation of two people standing on opposite sides of the Earth without gravity acting as a force. You've been challenge repeated and evaded. Could it be that you're wrong?
Logged
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #164 on: July 18, 2007, 01:26:24 PM »
I've answered your question Gulliver.  They're following the curvature of spacetime.  No force necessary, except the one the Earth applies to 'stop' them.
Logged
OMG!
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #165 on: July 18, 2007, 01:26:28 PM »
Geodesics. 

That's the answer.  If you are too stupid to realize it, well, just keep on doing what you are doing, as we are all having a big laugh at your expense, TomG.
Logged


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

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #166 on: July 18, 2007, 01:28:50 PM »
Gulliver is pretty dense.

Please note that that's just an observation.  I don't really have any sources (except for the nonsense he keeps posting) to back it up.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #167 on: July 18, 2007, 01:30:46 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Liar on July 18, 2007, 01:28:50 PM
Gulliver is pretty dense.

Please note that that's just an observation.  I don't really have any sources (except for the nonsense he keeps posting) to back it up.

Would he sink in a sea of people of normal density?  ^_^
Logged
OMG!
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #168 on: July 18, 2007, 01:44:46 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 18, 2007, 01:26:28 PM
Geodesics. 

That's the answer.  If you are too stupid to realize it, well, just keep on doing what you are doing, as we are all having a big laugh at your expense, TomG.
To TheEngineer, Sorry, but no. There is no FoR shift that can explain how two people standing on opposite sides of the Earth are attracted to the Earth at the same time. You can't produce it. You have failed. Your claim that "gravity as a force does not exist" is demonstratively refuted.

To CommonCents, give it some thought. The accelerations are going in opposite directions so a FoR shift can only translated one, but not both, into the GR's fictitious force paradigm. Really, honestly, and truly, TheEngineer is mistaken and you're bright enough to see it.

To divito, read my quotes too. It really is the case that GR, all too often, gets overly simplified. At first when you consider simpler cases, yes you can treat gravity as a fictitious force. However, this FoR shift cannot describe more complicated cases. Yes, we can often treat gravity as fictitious force, but not always. It's an exaggeration to say "gravity as a force does not exist". Einstein didn't say it. Indeed I've already posted where he says it can't always be done. (Let me know if you need a pointer to that post.)
Logged
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #169 on: July 18, 2007, 01:51:58 PM »
I should have known better than to have TomG admit defeat.  Imagine a FoR outside spacetime.  One which can see its curvature and see how objects move along it.  This is a FoR where gravity is a fake force.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 02:01:54 PM by CommonCents »
Logged
OMG!
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #170 on: July 18, 2007, 02:11:08 PM »
Quote from: CommonCents on July 18, 2007, 01:51:58 PM
I should have known better than to have TomG admit defeat.  Imagine a FoR outside spacetime.  One which can see its curvature and see how objects move along it.  This is a FoR where gravity is a fake force.
Let's me see if I understand you. You're suggesting, in direct contradiction to SR, that there exists a special FoR outisde of S-T. Is that right? Further you suggest that you start from this FoR and shift to some other FoR to see that gravity for both persons is a fictitious force. Is that right? If so, what is the new FoR? Let's call the first person, Alice, and place her on the "up" of the Earth. Let's call the second person, Bob, and place him on the "down" of the Earth. Just tell me the new FoR and show me how your FoR shift makes gravity a fictitious force for for Alice and Bob. Otherwise, I hope you'll consider that I'm right.
Logged
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #171 on: July 18, 2007, 02:19:34 PM »
First, we're talking about GR.

Second, Where does SR state that you can't have a FoR that can see the curvature of spacetime?  I never shifted to another FoR as you say.  I am wrong in saying "a FoR outside spacetime."  However, I don't see why a FoR that can observe the curvature of spacetime would be against SR.  It would see the same laws of physics, just the representation would be different.

Look, I admitted I was wrong to say "a FoR outside spacetime."  I can admit when I'm wrong (apparently).  Can you?
Logged
OMG!
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #172 on: July 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM »
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #173 on: July 18, 2007, 02:24:46 PM »
Logged
OMG!
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #174 on: July 18, 2007, 02:31:22 PM »
Quote from: CommonCents on July 18, 2007, 02:19:34 PM
First, we're talking about GR.

Second, Where does SR state that you can't have a FoR that can see the curvature of spacetime?  I never shifted to another FoR as you say.  I am wrong in saying "a FoR outside spacetime."  However, I don't see why a FoR that can observe the curvature of spacetime would be against SR.  It would see the same laws of physics, just the representation would be different.

Look, I admitted I was wrong to say "a FoR outside spacetime."  I can admit when I'm wrong (apparently).  Can you?
Once you correct your statement, you're fine. You don't seem to understand the process about how gravity comes to be considered a fictitious force. The process requires a change of FoR. The problem is you can't shift to one FoR for Alice and make what she feels fictitious and have Bob's gravity fictitious at the same time. (And it's not just me saying this. I've provided the Einstein quote from Relativity: the Special and General Theory and the Wikipedia quote. You, really, really, can't do this. Stating that "gravity as a force does not exist" is wrong.
Logged
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #175 on: July 18, 2007, 02:35:35 PM »
I'm not changing FoR from Alice to Bobby...I'm not even changing FoR to Greg or Jeff.  I told you a FoR in which gravity is a fake force is one which can see the curvature of spacetime.  It still sees 'gravity,' so the laws of physics haven't changed.  It just sees 'gravity' as spacetime bending and Alice AND Bobby are following its curvature to the Earth.  That's 1 FoR, stop telling me I'm using more.
Logged
OMG!
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #176 on: July 18, 2007, 02:39:20 PM »
Hey, maybe the earth is actually flat and spacetime all around us is curved, thus explaining why we observe things that make it look like the earth is curved!
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • +0/-0
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #177 on: July 18, 2007, 03:02:44 PM »
OMG U R TEH EINSTEIN MK. II !!!
Logged
?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • +0/-0
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #178 on: July 21, 2007, 11:15:51 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 18, 2007, 01:09:07 PM
Geodesics.
Non Euclidean space.

In other words, General Relativity. 

Geodesics are defined locally  ::)
Logged
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.
*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • +0/-0
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Weather forecasting.
« Reply #179 on: July 23, 2007, 02:46:29 AM »
I stand on the earth. I'm held to the earth. I throw a ball up. the ball comes bak down. Something applied a forse on the ball to make it stop moving up, then start moving down.

Sounds like a forse to me.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
« previous next »