Why Argue Semantics?

  • 43 Replies
  • 7080 Views
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2007, 01:35:30 AM »
-Time and time this has got in the way the OP's original topic, and for no really good reason.

As I've intimated before, it is fine to talk about gravity as purely an "observed" force, just as it is OK to sometimes talk about centrifugal force in the context of the rotating reference frame.  For example, Earth's gravity and acceleration due to gravity (earth's standard gravity).  Even Mr Hawking in his book talks about gravity in relation to GR, although some think he may have dumbed it down.

My view:  If you are specifically talking about situations in the context of GR (or in extreme cases of mass or acceleration) then you should not be using the term "gravity", otherwise it should be (and is) OK.

By the way I expect to be flamed for this.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 01:43:47 AM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2007, 01:56:18 AM »
Basically, if you're going to be arguing in the name of scientific things, use the modern and correct terms.

If you're just going to talk about stuff unrelated to science, use gravity.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2007, 02:01:26 AM »
If you're just going to talk about stuff unrelated to science, use gravity.

That's the problem;  Everything is related to science in some way.  I just don't think we should get hungup about terms like "gravity" unless they are out of context.  It just seems to get in the way of the debate, and for no good reason.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 02:03:10 AM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2007, 02:02:42 AM »
Speaking factually and accurately isn't a good reason? Then what is?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2007, 02:08:17 AM »
Speaking factually and accurately isn't a good reason? Then what is?

You are right, people should always be as factual as possible;  However if you know full well what the poster is trying to say and the term "gravity" does not change or contradict their argument, then just let it be (IMO).
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2007, 05:19:10 AM »
I'm still confused as to why it really matters if someone refers to gravity, since the effect of GR and of "just gravity" is kinda similar/almost the same?  (At least as it relates to FE/RE debate)
It's pure pedantry, basically.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17861
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2007, 04:37:47 PM »
Correct me where I'm wrong, please, I didn't study physics.

 I'm going to give a brief overview of Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory in simple non-mathematical layman's terms.

Light

Light is a massless particle with a constant speed to all observers.  It has momentum.  It acts as both a wave and a particle.

To explain the problem prior to Einstein's work with light speed I will use a simple example.  Lets say Alice is standing 1000 feet away from a light source, and Bob is moving at 10ft/sec towards the light source.  Both of them can detect the speed of things, because they are just cool kids.  Common sense tells us that light will be observed by Alice to be light speed, and light will be observed by Bob to be light speed ( c ) - 10ft/sec.  However, they both observe light speed to be the same ( c ).  This seems like a paradox of sorts, but Einstein shows us how this works, among other things. 

The faster things travel, the more massive to an outside observer they get.  Furthermore the slower time seems to be passing to the object, to an outside side observer.  This is known as time dilation.  As things approach the speed of light, they get more massive (and thus harder to accelerate) and seem to be passing slower to outside observers.  Since to reach the speed of light their mass would need to reach infinite mass, they cannot break this barrier.

This time dilation is what makes the speed of light constant.  Even though Bob is moving faster towards light than Alice, time dilates and he measures the speed the same.

Gravity

Gravity also dilates time.  In fact, Einstein says that Gravity (or more accurately, gravitation) is equivalent to acceleration locally.  That is to say, if you are in a closed box and feel something pulling you down there is no way to tell if you are accelerating upwards (as in an elevator) or if you are being pulled down by gravitation.

Heres where it gets messy.   Remember time dilation?  Well, lets look back at Alice and Bob to expand on that a bit.

Lets say Alice and Bob are in the middle of space with no stars, gravitation, or any place marks to tell ones position.  Bob starts moving away from Alice at a constant speed.  However, from Bobs frame of reference, he is not moving at all, and it is Alice that is moving away!  So, to bring it together, since Alice is moving faster than Bob from his Frame Of Reference, Alice actually has her time moving slower and she is more massive!  It is also true that from Alice's Frame of Reference Bob is slower and more massive.  This may again seem like a paradox, but it is not.

So what does this all have to do with gravitation?  I promise, all of this will come together at the end.

Back to the Equivalence Principle – you know, that says that gravitation is the same as acceleration.  Lets say you are in a closed box moving a constant speed.  This is known as an inertial frame of reference.  Now, lets say you are in a closed box accelerating upwards at the rate of 1g (about how fast you accelerate to the earth if you jump.)  This is known as a non-inertial frame of reference.  This is because you are being acted upon by a force that is unexplained by what you know.  In reality though, this is not a “force” at all.  It is actually what is known as a pseudo-force.  Here is how wikipedia explains it:

Quote
“When a car accelerates hard, the common human response is to feel "pushed back into the seat." In an inertial frame of reference attached to the road, there is no physical force moving the rider backward. However, in the rider's non-inertial reference frame attached to the accelerating car, there is a backward fictitious force.”

Now here is the kicker.  Einstein says gravity is a pseudo-force caused by taking a non-inertial frame of reference to be an inertial one.  That is to say, we think that its a force acting on us, but really we are just accelerating through space.

Now why would we accelerate for no reason towards mass?  This is most likely the most often explained part of Relativity as it relates to gravitation.  Energy distorts space time, much like a bowling bowl would distort a taught sheet.  Remember, energy is mass! (E=mc^2). This is why accelerating also distorts space-time!  In mathematical terms, the space is no longer flat (or Euclidean) but is now non-euclidean.  This means two objects travelling parallel to each other may not end up being parallel further along the line and may even eventually hit each other.   Straight lines are no longer “straight” but follow these distortions in space time.  When objects follow these “non-straight” straight lines, they are said to follow their geodesics.

An important consequence of this is that you don't need mass to be affected by gravitation.  You simply need momentum – to keep on travelling in a straight line.

So there we have it, Gravity is not a real force.  Of course, Quantum Mechanics might have something to say about that...

[To be continued when I have more time]

"You are a very reasonable man John." - D1

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet. Are of imagination all compact" - The Bard

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2007, 04:43:15 PM »
Too long, but I read it anyways.  ???
Does sounds accurate though.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

eric bloedow

Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2007, 05:51:29 PM »
i remember some old science magazine article where astronomers watching an asteroid or old satellite for a long time noticed that it was not following newton's equation, but WAS following einstein's. this was considered proof of einstein's theory.

another article told how an atomic clock was loaded into an airplane, flown to high altitude, then compared to a clock on the ground. result? the one on the plane was running slightly faster, just as einstein predicted!

in both cases, the UA would have had NO effect, but there WAS an affect, so...UA DISPROVEN!

i admit i don't understand the equations myself, but let me add that neither article was written by NASA...

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17861
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2007, 05:52:55 PM »
i remember some old science magazine article where astronomers watching an asteroid or old satellite for a long time noticed that it was not following newton's equation, but WAS following einstein's. this was considered proof of einstein's theory.

another article told how an atomic clock was loaded into an airplane, flown to high altitude, then compared to a clock on the ground. result? the one on the plane was running slightly faster, just as einstein predicted!

in both cases, the UA would have had NO effect, but there WAS an affect, so...UA DISPROVEN!

i admit i don't understand the equations myself, but let me add that neither article was written by NASA...
It would have an effect with UA, as you would be moving closer to the moon and celestial bodies, which cause gravitation.
"You are a very reasonable man John." - D1

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet. Are of imagination all compact" - The Bard

?

eric bloedow

Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2007, 06:04:41 PM »
whoops!

let's see: the UA is a flat object under the FE that PUSHES the earth upward...just HOW would that effect OTHER planets?
or the earth would crash into the moon, or shoot out of the solar system and leave all the other planets behind or...

my point: the UA theory is TOTALLY different from einstein, and would NOT produce time-distorting affects...but such effects REALLY HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN NOW!

oh, right; FErs don't "live" in the real world...

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2007, 08:21:01 PM »
whoops!

let's see: the UA is a flat object under the FE that PUSHES the earth upward
That is not true, even in Dogplatter's model.  The Dark Energy is what accelerates the FE in the standard model.

Quote
my point: the UA theory is TOTALLY different from einstein, and would NOT produce time-distorting affects...but such effects REALLY HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN NOW!
Wrong.  Clocks displaced along the vector of acceleration will also show time dilation.


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

?

eric bloedow

Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2007, 07:55:56 AM »
as usual, YOU missed my point: the clock in the airplane showed LESS time dialation than the one on the ground.
if "dark energy" was true, they would be "accellerating" at the SAME rate, and would match their time rated PERFECTLY!

the VERY first part of the "universal accelleration 101" thread says the UA is a solid mass under the earth! haven't you read THAT?!
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 07:57:43 AM by eric bloedow »

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2007, 10:06:20 AM »
as usual, YOU missed my point: the clock in the airplane showed LESS time dialation than the one on the ground.
if "dark energy" was true, they would be "accellerating" at the SAME rate, and would match their time rated PERFECTLY!
Clocks accelerated along the vector of acceleration will also experience a dilation of time, thus it would read less than one left on the ground.  A quick read of the Equivalence Principle might prove useful to you.

Quote
the VERY first part of the "universal accelleration 101" thread says the UA is a solid mass under the earth! haven't you read THAT?!
Yes, I have read it.  It also states the Dark Matter (UA) has crests and valleys, upon which the other celestial bodies sit. 
In the standard model of the FAQ, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the FE and the celestial bodies.


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