Sketipical Physics

Hi all I'm new here and as you can guess I like physics, I study it and I like being ironic hence the "sketipical".

Anyways I stumbled upon this site and I offer not proof (because nothing is ever proven apparently) but my two cents on why the Earth cannot be flat and is in fact round.

First is childish but still questionable nonetheless: why do ships disappear over the horizon as if they are sinking?  I've read (in many social studies books as a child) and seen this phenomenon.  A flat earth would have the ships appear only to get smaller and smaller, not "sinking" over the horizon.  Now some say water bulges on the flat earth, but then what keeps the what bulgy?

Second is more scientific: Einstein's theories I'm sure get brought up many times over here.  Okay so let's all assume that everything is accelerating up as described in the Flat Earth theory, if it's accelerating and so is everything else it must be because of some large body of mass.  Alrighty so then if we're accelerating "up" because of mass, why do things like meteorites/meteors/space dust fall down upon the Earth?  We can't just run into them on our way up, for they should be accelerating upwards too at the same acceleration given by you're argument.

Third:  The formation of the Flat Earth doesn't make any sense as you can imagine after studying astrophysics, or just rolling a ball of snow around.

Fourth: All of science would be null, the greatest advances in technology have come from the theories and effects of the Earth being round.  The General theory of relativity gave birth to countless technologies which if the theory was incorrect (including a flat earth) would non-existent.  The Atom Bomb, computers, complex chemistry, atom smashers, Hawking's Theories, the Quantum theory are base upon the idea that Einsteins theory is correct, and those technologies birth are confirmation in that.  Sure there is a problem between the Big World described by General Relativity and the Small World of Quantum Mechanics; but both theories are most likely correct.

I pray this forum isn't some joke to get people all riled up or I would've wasted a considerable amount of breath (well more like typing).  I also pray people don't just accept but go find things out for themselves.  If you think the Earth is Flat, go study physics; if you think it's round go study physics too.  Just be educated about whatever you preach.

Hi all I'm new here and as you can guess I like physics, I study it and I like being ironic hence the "sketipical".

Anyways I stumbled upon this site and I offer not proof (because nothing is ever proven apparently) but my two cents on why the Earth cannot be flat and is in fact round.

First is childish but still questionable nonetheless: why do ships disappear over the horizon as if they are sinking?  I've read (in many social studies books as a child) and seen this phenomenon.  A flat earth would have the ships appear only to get smaller and smaller, not "sinking" over the horizon.  Now some say water bulges on the flat earth, but then what keeps the what bulgy?

Second is more scientific: Einstein's theories I'm sure get brought up many times over here.  Okay so let's all assume that everything is accelerating up as described in the Flat Earth theory, if it's accelerating and so is everything else it must be because of some large body of mass.  Alrighty so then if we're accelerating "up" because of mass, why do things like meteorites/meteors/space dust fall down upon the Earth?  We can't just run into them on our way up, for they should be accelerating upwards too at the same acceleration given by you're argument.

Third:  The formation of the Flat Earth doesn't make any sense as you can imagine after studying astrophysics, or just rolling a ball of snow around.

Fourth: All of science would be null, the greatest advances in technology have come from the theories and effects of the Earth being round.  The General theory of relativity gave birth to countless technologies which if the theory was incorrect (including a flat earth) would non-existent.  The Atom Bomb, computers, complex chemistry, atom smashers, Hawking's Theories, the Quantum theory are base upon the idea that Einsteins theory is correct, and those technologies birth are confirmation in that.  Sure there is a problem between the Big World described by General Relativity and the Small World of Quantum Mechanics; but both theories are most likely correct.

I pray this forum isn't some joke to get people all riled up or I would've wasted a considerable amount of breath (well more like typing).  I also pray people don't just accept but go find things out for themselves.  If you think the Earth is Flat, go study physics; if you think it's round go study physics too.  Just be educated about whatever you preach.

1.  It's because of the waves in the way obscuring more and more of the bottom of the ship as it gets further and further away.  Really, that's the official explanation.

2.  Obviously some amazing force is acting on these rocks that hit the earth to counter the effects of the UA.  I guess.

3.  In the beginning there was only the turtle... ah, never mind.  I really haven't seen an adequate explanation for the formation of the earth.  We don't know *everything*, and even from a RE perspective there are plenty of mysteries we don't have an adequate explanation for.  It's plausible in my mind that some unknown mechanism could have caused the earth to form in the way it did.

4.  Honestly I have yet to understand how GR is incompatible with the idea of a flat earth.  We have one guy on here who insists it's not and another who insists it is.  I myself am not proficient in physics.  Why does the earth have to be round for GR to be correct?

I think it's more an exercise intended to spark intelligent (and otherwise) debate than an out-and-out prank.  But I don't think anybody here really believes in a flat earth.

First is childish but still questionable nonetheless: why do ships disappear over the horizon as if they are sinking?  I've read (in many social studies books as a child) and seen this phenomenon.  A flat earth would have the ships appear only to get smaller and smaller, not "sinking" over the horizon.  Now some say water bulges on the flat earth, but then what keeps the what bulgy?

Perhaps one of the most popular anti-zetetic criticisms, pioneered by Plato himself, the sinking ship problem has been addressed many times on this site. You're right - perspective does creating the "shrinking" illusion. What causes the disappearance of hulls is the combined effect of altitude-dependant atmospheric distortion and distance/wave frequency correlation.

In simpler terms, the atmosphere is thickest at sea level and quickly gets thinner, partially obscuring the lowest parts of distant boats and creating a fuzzy gradient of visibility which is optimal at the top of the boat, and the frequency and probability of increasingly higher waves with the increased distance of an object on water compounds to utterly obscure the low parts of an object.

To test this, observe that the sinking ship phenomenon is far more acute on a stormy day with rough seas than it is on a calm, placid day. If Round Earther's claims of curvature held any water (no pun intended), the sinking ship phenomenon should be completely uniform regardless of choppiness and weather.

Second is more scientific: Einstein's theories I'm sure get brought up many times over here.  Okay so let's all assume that everything is accelerating up as described in the Flat Earth theory, if it's accelerating and so is everything else it must be because of some large body of mass.  Alrighty so then if we're accelerating "up" because of mass, why do things like meteorites/meteors/space dust fall down upon the Earth?  We can't just run into them on our way up, for they should be accelerating upwards too at the same acceleration given by you're argument.

I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass.

Third:  The formation of the Flat Earth doesn't make any sense as you can imagine after studying astrophysics, or just rolling a ball of snow around.

Ah, the famous snow-rolling proof of globularism. (No really, what?)

Fourth: All of science would be null, the greatest advances in technology have come from the theories and effects of the Earth being round.  The General theory of relativity gave birth to countless technologies which if the theory was incorrect (including a flat earth) would non-existent.  The Atom Bomb, computers, complex chemistry, atom smashers, Hawking's Theories, the Quantum theory are base upon the idea that Einsteins theory is correct, and those technologies birth are confirmation in that.  Sure there is a problem between the Big World described by General Relativity and the Small World of Quantum Mechanics; but both theories are most likely correct.

Einstein doesn't have to be all right or all wrong. He was right on certain things (gravitation indistinguishable from acceleration, for example). The shape of the Earth has no bearing on whether these technologies would or would not have been created.

I pray this forum isn't some joke to get people all riled up or I would've wasted a considerable amount of breath (well more like typing).  I also pray people don't just accept but go find things out for themselves.  If you think the Earth is Flat, go study physics; if you think it's round go study physics too.  Just be educated about whatever you preach.

Oh, we do. Our Round Earthers and Flat Earthers alike are for the most part dilligent physics autodidacts as a result of our ceaselsss debate.

1.  It's because of the waves in the way obscuring more and more of the bottom of the ship as it gets further and further away.  Really, that's the official explanation.

Comined with the effect of ADAD.

2.  Obviously some amazing force is acting on these rocks that hit the earth to counter the effects of the UA.  I guess.

I always figured meteors were probably just dropped by the conspiracy. Otherwise, their source might be bodies subject to photoelectric suspension which had somehow gone out of sinc.

3.  In the beginning there was only the turtle... ah, never mind.  I really haven't seen an adequate explanation for the formation of the earth.  We don't know *everything*, and even from a RE perspective there are plenty of mysteries we don't have an adequate explanation for.  It's plausible in my mind that some unknown mechanism could have caused the earth to form in the way it did.

Ooh, check out my "Dark Matter Cosmology: Creation of the Flat Universe" or whatever it's called in Alt. Science. It got bashed to pieces, but it's at least a vague framework for starting to conjecture on the origins of the universe. I drew pictures too.

4.  Honestly I have yet to understand how GR is incompatible with the idea of a flat earth.  We have one guy on here who insists it's not and another who insists it is.  I myself am not proficient in physics.  Why does the earth have to be round for GR to be correct?

I think it's something to do with the existence of gravity being an integral part of Einstein's theory as a whole. That doesn't mean that certain observations which he was clearly right about can't be detached from the overall bogusity of the theory.

I think it's more an exercise intended to spark intelligent (and otherwise) debate than an out-and-out prank.  But I don't think anybody here really believes in a flat earth.

I know I do, and I'm fairly sure Dionysios does as well. Tom might.

All I can say is that if you truly believe some of the garbage you post, you have serious mental problems. 

I've already made that observation about Dionysios (whoo!).

"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

moving on Gravity is not a force, it's an effect due to the curving of space.  A ball falling towards the earth (whatever shape you want haha) is described as falling by the force due to gravity.  Think of it like this, you place a chair on a flat table and sit on it and you surprisingly stay seated in the chair.  Now place your chair on the side of a very steep hill and now sit in it and you'll probably fall over; that's similar to what gravity is

moving on Gravity is not a force, it's an effect due to the curving of space

Care to reference some evidence for the mysterious mechanism of gravity?

Jump into the air or walk off the edge of a two foot high drop-off and observe the ground carefully. You will notice that the earth rises up to meet you. Ergo, the earth is accelerating.
 

"Care you provide some evidence for the mysterious mechanism of gravity?"

haha Tom

if you watch extremely carefully you can actually see the tiny curve that you follow on your way to the ground.

light being emitted from a star that passes near a large planet or body actually bends due to the gravitational pull of such a body. 

haha Tom

What evidence is there for the bending of space-time being the mechanism for gravity? What evidence is there showing that space-time can bend at all?

What you've suggested for the mechanism for gravity is a meaningless untested theory; you may as well say that "magic" is responsible for gravity.

There is zero evidence for the mechanism of bending space. There is zero evidence showing that space can bend. There is zero evidence for gravity.

light being emitted from a star that passes near a large planet or body actually bends due to the gravitational pull of such a body.

That is evidence of gravitation; but what of the bending of space time? Where is the evidence for that?

The bending light may come from a Newtonian force, LeSage's mechanism, Nordstrom's mechanism, Whitehead's mechanism, the Equivalence Principle, or one of the many other alternatives for gravity.

Quote

haha Tom

What evidence is there for the bending of space-time being the mechanism for gravity? What evidence is there showing that space-time can bend at all?

What you've suggested for the mechanism for gravity is a meaningless untested theory; you may as well say that "magic" is responsible for gravity.

There is zero evidence for the mechanism of bending space. There is zero evidence showing that space can bend. There is zero evidence for gravity.

Nice quote job. 

Spacetime bending can be observed.  If you feel that the observations are fake please say so. 

among other evidence from boogey men and witch doctors here is perhaps the greatest test that the theory is correct to an incredibly accurate level

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/einstein-was-right

Spacetime bending can be observed.  If you feel that the observations are fake please say so.

Gravitation has been observed. Space-time bending has not.

Please show me how we can observe space-time being bent.

The bending of light may come from a Newtonian force, LeSage's mechanism, Nordstrom's mechanism, Whitehead's mechanism, the Equivalence Principle, or one of the many other alternatives for gravity.

Quote

Spacetime bending can be observed.  If you feel that the observations are fake please say so.

Gravitation has been observed. Space-time bending has not.

Please show me how we can observe space-time being bent.

Well see one post above and see lunar eclipse shows spacetime bending. 

ahem

the Einstein tensor, a purely mathematical principle which applies to the real world


G_mn = R_mn - (1/2)g_mnR

to put it simply the left side describes all the stuff in a space while on the right describes how the space curves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_tensor

"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

moving on Gravity is not a force, it's an effect due to the curving of space.  A ball falling towards the earth (whatever shape you want haha) is described as falling by the force due to gravity.  Think of it like this, you place a chair on a flat table and sit on it and you surprisingly stay seated in the chair.  Now place your chair on the side of a very steep hill and now sit in it and you'll probably fall over; that's similar to what gravity is

<whisper>Your equation's wrong</whisper>

F = G * (m₁m₂)/r²

::blushes:: whoops, forgot the ^2 lol

::blushes:: whoops, forgot the ^2

Fixed

Get it?  It's a big whoops!

"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

Yeah - In FE there isn't a formula like that which describes (non-existent) gravity, the physical world acts just exactly as if the Earth were moving upwards with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2. It's not related to mass in any way. Galileo (for all his eventual scientific shortcomings) discovered, correctly, that the mass of a body did not affect its falling - only shape and size have any bearing on this.

Quote from: sketipical physics on August 01, 2007, 12:16:40 PM

"I don't really get what you're saying here. Universal Acceleration is a constant and is not related to mass"

The Universal Acceleration, I think you're referring to the constant G, which before Einstein was described in the equation as F = G (m1 * m2)/(r)

Where F = Force, G = gravitational constant, m= mass , r = distance between the two bodies. 

This equation does not take into account GR but is still highly accurate.  So do some algebra and you get

G = (F*r)/(m1*m2) so the constant is dependent on mass (I think that's what you were talking about, if not then this was just a quick lesson haha)

Yeah - In FE there isn't a formula like that which describes (non-existent) gravity, the physical world acts just exactly as if the Earth were moving upwards with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2. It's not related to mass in any way. Galileo (for all his eventual scientific shortcomings) discovered, correctly, that the mass of a body did not affect its falling - only shape and size have any bearing on this.

luckily the thread title is skeptical physics and not fake physics, otherwise you would be right.
While dropping items off the Eiffel tower does show mass doesn't matter,  mass of the earth does.  Variations in gravitation are found everywhere. 

luckily the thread title is skeptical physics and not fake physics, otherwise you would be right.
While dropping items off the Eiffel tower does show mass doesn't matter,  mass of the earth does.  Variations in gravitation are found everywhere. 

They're caused by experimental error. I have personally tested for variation by altitude and found no significant discrepancy.

Would you mind posting how you performed your experiments in varying altitudes?  Also, I forgot, and can't find, how you explained the results of the Cavendish experiment.

Quote from: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 01:50:09 PM

luckily the thread title is skeptical physics and not fake physics, otherwise you would be right.
While dropping items off the Eiffel tower does show mass doesn't matter,  mass of the earth does.  Variations in gravitation are found everywhere. 

They're caused by experimental error. I have personally tested for variation by altitude and found no significant discrepancy.

I highly doubt you have an atomic clock. 

We did it with oil and water. If gravity was weaker in a certain area (at a much higher altitude), oil would take noticably n longer to rise through water and rest on top. By releasing a fixed amount of oil under a fixed amount of water in a specialised container we built at two different sites, we determined that there was no discernable difference in times, and hence in gravitational strength.

We did it with oil and water. If gravity was weaker in a certain area (at a much higher altitude), oil would take noticably n longer to rise through water and rest on top. By releasing a fixed amount of oil under a fixed amount of water in a specialised container we built at two different sites, we determined that there was no discernable difference in times, and hence in gravitational strength.

Like I said, I highly doubt you have an atomic clock.  You can search around for gravitation charts. 
9.801m/s² would be hard to differentiate form 9.802m/s² without the right tools. 

Like I said, I highly doubt you have an atomic clock.  You can search around for gravitation charts. 
9.801m/s² would be hard to differentiate form 9.802m/s² without the right tools. 

How convenient - the only tools for the verification of variation are available exclusively to the Conspiracy. We just have to take their word for it?

We did it with oil and water. If gravity was weaker in a certain area (at a much higher altitude), oil would take noticably n longer to rise through water and rest on top. By releasing a fixed amount of oil under a fixed amount of water in a specialised container we built at two different sites, we determined that there was no discernable difference in times, and hence in gravitational strength.

Yes, but how did you change the altitude?  Being on higher ground shouldn't do it because there's more mass under you now.  You'd have to perform the same experiment hovering way above your 'ground level' site.

EDIT:  More mass under you helps to compensate for the difference in distance from the center of the Earth.

Quote from: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 02:19:49 PM

Like I said, I highly doubt you have an atomic clock.  You can search around for gravitation charts. 
9.801m/s² would be hard to differentiate form 9.802m/s² without the right tools. 

How convenient - the only tools for the verification of variation are available exclusively to the Conspiracy. We just have to take their word for it?

There is other ways then to use a $200,000 clock.  Ok so you say your experiment worked.  Post up the lab report so it can be reviewed. 

Yes, but how did you change the altitude?  Being on higher ground shouldn't do it because there's more mass under you now.  You'd have to perform the same experiment hovering way above your 'ground level' site.

You're right - perhaps this was an experimental flaw on our part. If I can, I'll redo the higher altitude measurements in the air at some point (difficult thanks to the SWEFES's lack of an aeroplane).

Quote from: CommonCents on August 01, 2007, 02:31:05 PM

Yes, but how did you change the altitude?  Being on higher ground shouldn't do it because there's more mass under you now.  You'd have to perform the same experiment hovering way above your 'ground level' site.

You're right - perhaps this was an experimental flaw on our part. If I can, I'll redo the higher altitude measurements in the air at some point (difficult thanks to the SWEFES's lack of an aeroplane).

No hes wrong, Higher ground doesn't matter.  But floating in air would give better results.

So you don't have a lab write up?  Why should I believe you actually did anything?

I'm not wrong, this could be the very reason they couldn't measure a difference.  I didn't say it would completely make up for the distance, I said it would help compensate.

Dogplatter, you could try a tethered balloon or something.  It might be cheaper and easier to use than an airplane.  Also, could you answer my question about the Cavendish experiment?