What am I seeing when I look up?

oh and before we get the change of subject.  I only mentioned newtonian physics to mock you because even tho it is 321 years old it explains every measurement of objects that can be made on the planet (except the time dialation experiment, which of course amusingly disproves the entire flat earth theory, and proves GR gravity) and all movements of celestial bodies that can be observed with the naked eye or a small telescope and has no internal inconsistencies at all. 

Whereas FE explains only a single thing: measurement of downwards acceleration at a single altitude, and a single latitude, and every other measurement ever made is not consistent with that,  thus making it 100% inconsistent.

I think that's what you call a whooping. 


Now when you get onto more detailed observations of the sky, of course GR has to come into play, but by the time your at that detail the entire explanation of FE is 'teh conspiricy', so why bother even comparing. 


RE wins forever.   

FE looses forever. 

the end.







Unless of course anyone wants to try a go with accelerating luminiferous aether theory that is..... ALAT, it's got a nice acronym too.....  you know you want to..... 

oh and before we get the change of subject.  I only mentioned newtonian physics to mock you because even tho it is 321 years old it explains every measurement of objects that can be made on the planet (except the time dialation experiment, which of course amusingly disproves the entire flat earth theory, and proves GR gravity) and all movements of celestial bodies that can be observed with the naked eye or a small telescope and has no internal inconsistencies at all. 

Newtonian physics couldnt explain this.

Now when you get onto more detailed observations of the sky, of course GR has to come into play, but by the time your at that detail the entire explanation of FE is 'teh conspiricy', so why bother even comparing. 

No.

RE wins forever.   

FE looses forever. 

the end.

Really, just no.

Newtonian physics couldnt explain this.

I already noted that that was the only other thing in the solar system newonian physics couldn't explain.  That is why I qualified the statement with

that can be observed with the naked eye or a small telescope

, and you cannot track the orbit of mercury without quite a big telescope, it's not in my description. 

well... lolz... I agree with you again, except for your oversight of mercury and an FEer nailed you for it before I could correct that little oversight. sigh.

Anyway... this and other threads seem to exhibit a misunderstanding of science. General Douchbag wants an REer to admit that Newtonian Gravity is magic. fine... I'll admit it. But IMHO that's off topic. Nothing in that theory or in general science seeks to answer the "why" question... "eg why does gravity work" it seeks instead to take as few postulates (FEers would call them magic) and go as far as one can with them. Continuing on the Newtonian example...

I'll even go so far as to admit that that theory has 4 bits of magic. Newton's 3 laws plus newtonian gravitation. But with those 4 things (as lolz pointed out) one can explain all that we see in our solar system (except for mercury's orbit, and various stars' positions during a solar eclipse.)

Ask a scientist "why A" and you'll get just speculation, most scientists don't dwell on the "why" part, what they seek is "If A then B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K... etc" And they'll call the theory a success. If the answer to "why A" doesn't give the scientist any additional ability to predict something new like "M,N,O or P" then most scientists are largely uninterested. Stating that one doesn't believe in "A" because one doesn't like the answer to "Why A" is outside the realm of science.

So... both FEers and REers appear to agree that F=ma. Why does F=ma? hell if I know. But it appears so from common observation and those who think this is somehow less "magical" a hypothesis than F=m₁*m₂*g/r² are just plain fooling themselves. These are our best guesses as to how the world works. Ideally science seeks to boil all this down to just one guess... and everything comes about as a consequence of that guess, but I doubt we'll ever get to zero initial guesses.

mercury wasn't an oversight, I excluded it deliberately, it's in my previous posts.  I excluded it cos it is not something a normal person would ever observe, you need a serious telescope to track the motion of mercury, it's impossible to see with any telescope you would have in your house most of the time so can't be tracked by it.  Le Verrier who discovered this of cource had the Paris Observatory at his disposal, one of the best in the world at the time.  Noone can make the observance from his back garden. 

All the observations from observatories and from NASA are classed as OMG! conspiricy by the FEers and so for them to claim inconsistencies there is amusing as they use hte get out that they are fake and do not even attempt to explain them. 


Anyway, I think they will have to think a bit harder about thier model, parroting relativity over and over is not going to cut it.   

 

I did not know that fellow's name... so thanks for that tip.

Regarding equipment needed to observe Mercury's precession... I take exception but do not know for sure.

I have an 8" (200mm) meade LX 200 and have some pictures I took myself of the 2006 transit of Mercury across the sun.

What I imagine Le Verrier had that others don't isn't equipment but patience to take the observations himself. I imagine I could too, and have an easier time of it than Le Verrier had with my camera attached to my scope, but unfortunately I have little interest in duplicating a well known result because I'm a hobbiest, not a professional.

I do know that precise astronomical positions are calculated, NOT by reading the RA and DEC off of the telescope, (those are good, but rough) but instead by comparing the desired object to other stars of well established positions in the same field of view.

Mercury likes Uranus.

The discrepancy is very small, similar to the discrepancy caused by another tiny plant inside mercury's orbit, cos that's what he thought it was to begin with, having discovered Uranus that way.  

And well, with modern technology, I guess locating your exact position and what not and being able to use cameras might give you more of an advantage, I doubt anyone has tried it, it would be really tedious, but it might just be possible.  

Anyway, that's 2 discrepancies out of millions of observations that could be done, if we say there are a million differnt observations that could be made, that's still 999998 for RE to 1 for FE.  Not a bad score.  

And more to the point... no one was able to either find said planet or fit newtonian mechanics to fit the observations. Rather... Einstein had a completely unrelated insight, derived GR and then calculated GR's effect on Mercury and found that it fit the observations. So... that process too seems alien to most FEers here. I seem to see many find a problem with FE, and tweak something ad-hoc in a manner to get theory to match up with observation and then never use said new theory to predict a new phenomenon or explain an old but seemingly unrelated phenomenon .

Can you people please explain to me why you do not think we would feel a lower g in the sky than we do on the ground in FET?

well... for one... newtonian gravity is an inverse square law. The further you get away from the source the weaker the gravitational force.

Robosteve... you seemed, up till this question, to know something or regular physics and math, what gives?

Note, FWIW, I don't really care about this argument. I think there are easier ways to show the fallacy of FE... so... I'm content to not dwell here nor to have you explain how FE accounts for this observation. I'm content to completely ignore this result.

You have only explained how, in RET using Newtonian physics, g would decrease with altitude. You have not explained why you think a flat Earth would not have this effect.

You have only explained how, in RET using Newtonian physics, g would decrease with altitude. You have not explained why you think a flat Earth would not have this effect.

RE: g=Gm/r²
FE: g=9.8m/s²

FET has no allowance for a decreasing value

You have only explained how, in RET using Newtonian physics, g would decrease with altitude. You have not explained why you think a flat Earth would not have this effect.

Fair enough.
In RE, at a distance of 30,000 miles the pull of the earth's gravity is 1/100th the strength at the surface because we're 10 times further from the center of mass than we are at the surface (3000 mile radius). So an object 30,000 miles high would measure the acceleration to be 0.098 m/s/s.

My understanding of FE is that everything is moving at 9.8 m/s/s. So, 30,000 miles up (a crazy distance for FE I understand, but I want to keep the math simple) the acceleration is still 9.8 m/s/s, right? This is what the FEers are claiming, right?

 

Can you people please explain to me why you do not think we would feel a lower g in the sky than we do on the ground in FET?

Because we wouldn't. 

So the fact that you would be closer to the stars, which have mass, means nothing?

So the fact that you would be closer to the stars, which have mass, means nothing?

So how massive are these stars?
How does the dispersion of the stars allow for a relatively uniform gravitational change across the entire planet?
If the stars have mass and hence gravitation(no argument there) what if the reason that they have not collapsed into each other given the small space that they must occupy in the FE model

So how massive are these stars?
How does the dispersion of the stars allow for a relatively uniform gravitational change across the entire planet?
If the stars have mass and hence gravitation(no argument there) what if the reason that they have not collapsed into each other given the small space that they must occupy in the FE model

It is not known exactly how massive they are. Their dispersion causes the horizontal component of any gravitational effect they may have to cancel out, so that there is only a vertical component. They do not collapse into each other because of their orbital motion about the celestial pole.

Their dispersion causes the horizontal component of any gravitational effect they may have to cancel out, so that there is only a vertical component.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 13, 2008, 11:21:05 PM

Their dispersion causes the horizontal component of any gravitational effect they may have to cancel out, so that there is only a vertical component.

There are an equal number of stars on one side to those that are on the other side. Therefore, the horizontal component of their gravitation cancels out. I am not certain what else you could have meant by "a relatively uniform gravitational change".

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 13, 2008, 11:25:46 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 13, 2008, 11:21:05 PM

Their dispersion causes the horizontal component of any gravitational effect they may have to cancel out, so that there is only a vertical component.

There are an equal number of stars on one side to those that are on the other side. Therefore, the horizontal component of their gravitation cancels out. I am not certain what else you could have meant by "a relatively uniform gravitational change".

despite the fact that the concentration of the stars is not uniform across the sky, why does the force due to gravity decrease in a 1/r² manner across the earth


Edit: fixed it up a bit for you

how despite the fact that the stars are not spread evenly across the sky, the force due to gravity will decrease in a 1/r² manner across the earth

I am tired and do not feel like attempting to infer where you intended to place your punctuation. Please rewrite that post, and this time at least try to conform to the rules of English sentence structure.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 14, 2008, 01:16:31 AM

how despite the fact that the stars are not spread evenly across the sky, the force due to gravity will decrease in a 1/r² manner across the earth

I am tired and do not feel like attempting to infer where you intended to place your punctuation. Please rewrite that post, and this time at least try to conform to the rules of English sentence structure.

go ahead and take another shot at it

despite the fact that the concentration of the stars is not uniform across the sky, why does the force due to gravity decrease in a 1/r² manner across the earth

Ignoring your incorrect use of the phrase "force due to gravity", the gravitation felt in an upwards direction would increase according to the distance to the stars (I don't know if the exact relationship would be an inverse square one or not), and at small distances (up to that at which planes fly) this would approximate an inverse square relationship as it would be felt on a round Earth.

Can you people please explain to me why you do not think we would feel a lower g in the sky than we do on the ground in FET?

Because the theory doesn't say that. 

Quote from: Robosteve on August 13, 2008, 07:41:36 PM

Can you people please explain to me why you do not think we would feel a lower g in the sky than we do on the ground in FET?

Because the theory doesn't say that. 

Congratulations, you have successfully ignored all posts I have made in this thread since that one.

So the fact that you would be closer to the stars, which have mass, means nothing?

According to FE theory it means nothing.  Unless you want to put forward a theory whare that is not hte case. 

According to FE theory it means nothing.  Unless you want to put forward a theory whare that is not hte case. 

You misunderstand FET.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 14, 2008, 07:33:42 AM

According to FE theory it means nothing.  Unless you want to put forward a theory whare that is not hte case. 

You misunderstand FET.

Which FE theory?  everyone has a different one.   

There is a small mass above the Earth pulling things upwards.