A question for the REers.

Hey, I'm not saying anything, remember that I am an RE believer, and most likely always will be I'm just trying to see what arguments possibly could come up.. this is one.

Hey, I'm not saying anything, remember that I am an RE believer, and most likely always will be I'm just trying to see what arguments possibly could come up.. this is one.

I guess you are right. If you haven't said it, an FE'er would.

FE'ers, if you still hold on to your claim at least revise your FAQ.

My question remains unanswered.

My question remains unanswered.

If you want an explanation, do not look for it in science. Science is not about explanations. Science is about predictions. You do not like forces acting at a distance because you feel like there should be a nice, cozy feeling that you "get it". But you do not fight against the weak force, the strong force or electromagnetism.

I have news for you: the weak and strong forces keep atoms from disintegrating and keep you alive.  They are forces at a distance, and yet you do not question them. They are unexplainable in the sense you want them explained.

And guess what, electromagnetism is also unexplainable forces at a distance, but you use your computer instead of declaring it impossible to accept.

Both Newton's gravity and Einstein's curved space-time predict the orbit of planets and many other things within well known boundaries of precision, speeds and densities. If you find a theory that gets even close to that predicting power, then you can laugh.

So RE has no answer? Victory for FE, it appears.

So your saying an infinitely powerful force provides exactly enough thrust to propel an infinitely large and thus infinitely heavy plane by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?

It is more convenient to speak of pressure, rather than force, if one accepts the infinite plane model.

So RE has no answer? Victory for FE, it appears.

Don't be silly. Reread trig's excellent post. How do you explain gravitation yourself?

It is more convenient to speak of pressure, rather than force, if one accepts the infinite plane model.

My question is the same. Are saying the "engine" (call it whatever you like), stuck the backside of an infinite plane, provides an infinite amount of gravitational pressure to accelerate us by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?

My question is the same. Are saying the "engine" (call it whatever you like), stuck the backside of an infinite plane, provides an infinite amount of gravitational pressure to accelerate us by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?

No. p = F / A and F = ma, where p is pressure, F is force and A is the area of the base of the flat Earth. If we define the thickness of the flat Earth as x and the volume it occupies as V, then A = V / x. Then the average density of the Earth, ρ, is equal to m / V.

Putting all of this together, we get:

p = ma / A

p = max / V

p = ρax

Thus, a finite pressure can accelerate a flat Earth of finite thickness and density at a finite rate, regardless of its mass and surface area.

I don't agree on your math.

I guess you final step is,



However, assuming an infinite plane, the surface area is infinitely large. Thus, this derivation is not valid since you are dividing with .

No. Here is how I got from each step to the next:

F / A => ma / A (substitute ma for F, since F = ma)

ma / A => max / V (substitute x / V for 1 / A, since A = V / x)

max / V => ρax (substitute ρ for m / V, since ρ = m / V)

If you don't like the idea of doing this with an infinite plane, then consider it a finite plane and then take the limit as A approaches infinity. The variables that depend on A (that is, V = Ax, m = ρAx and F = ρaAx) will all approach infinity together, but since none of them are in the final equation it is unaffected by this limit.

Robosteve you are arguing that a phenomena of finite size can propel a phenomena of infinite size. The very idea is wrong in the first place. Granted, it seems at second glance your equation is valid, but only because you have derived the pressure needed per unit size. However, assuming an infinite plane would require an infinite number of fractions of the total pressure. Taking the limit of A when it doesn't appear in the equation doesn't prove a thing. I might as well take the limit of luminosity but as it does not appear in the final equation what is the benifit?

Robosteve you are arguing that a phenomena of finite size can propel a phenomena of infinite size.

No I am not.

The very idea is wrong in the first place.

Yes it is.

Granted, it seems at second glance your equation is valid, but only because you have derived the pressure needed per unit size.

No I have not.

However, assuming an infinite plane would require an infinite number of fractions of the total pressure.

Do you even understand what pressure is?

Taking the limit of A when it doesn't appear in the equation doesn't prove a thing. I might as well take the limit of luminosity but as it does not appear in the final equation what is the benifit?

One can take the limit of A throughout all of the equations, and still end up with an equation that does not involve A.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 16, 2008, 06:04:36 AM

Granted, it seems at second glance your equation is valid, but only because you have derived the pressure needed per unit size.

No I have not.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 16, 2008, 06:04:36 AM

However, assuming an infinite plane would require an infinite number of fractions of the total pressure.

Do you even understand what pressure is?

The units of pressure is, as you are most certainly very well aware, force per unit area kg*m^-1*s^-2. Thus the numerical value you assign to P is the force per unit area.

Your pressure exerts a force on the plane of the earth. The instant you ask "How big a force does my pressure exert on the earth?" the area of the infinite plane enters the equation, F = P*A. Try taking the limit now.

Your pressure exerts a force on the plane of the earth. The instant you ask "How big a force does my pressure exert on the earth?" the area of the infinite plane enters the equation, F = P*A. Try taking the limit now.

You are correct. That is why I said that it is more convenient to speak of pressure when dealing with the infinite plane model.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 16, 2008, 08:01:07 AM

Your pressure exerts a force on the plane of the earth. The instant you ask "How big a force does my pressure exert on the earth?" the area of the infinite plane enters the equation, F = P*A. Try taking the limit now.

You are correct. That is why I said that it is more convenient to speak of pressure when dealing with the infinite plane model.

Oh, I see your point. But it is my opinion that discussing this particular instance in terms of different units does not provide a valid explanation. We are back at seeking an answer to how a phenomena can provide an infinitely powerful force that provides exactly enough thrust to propel a plane of infinite extent by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2. The discussion so far shows the earth cannot be of infinite extent. What then, would you propose propels the acceleration of a finite earth?

Why haven't any of you proposed dark energy yet?

Oh, I see your point. But it is my opinion that discussing this particular instance in terms of different units does not provide a valid explanation. We are back at seeking an answer to how a phenomena can provide an infinitely powerful force that provides exactly enough thrust to propel a plane of infinite extent by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2. The discussion so far shows the earth cannot be of infinite extent. What then, would you propose propels the acceleration of a finite earth?

Dark energy.

I requested such a propose because it has been discussed before and I would like to include it in this debate. It seems the only plausible explanation. But why would there be more dark energy on one side of the earth than on the other?

I requested such a propose because it has been discussed before and I would like to include it in this debate. It seems the only plausible explanation. But why would there be more dark energy on one side of the earth than on the other?

It acts unidirectionally throughout the Universe. That direction we call "up".

Why haven't any of you proposed dark energy yet?

Dark energy.

Lol

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 16, 2008, 08:59:25 AM

I requested such a propose because it has been discussed before and I would like to include it in this debate. It seems the only plausible explanation. But why would there be more dark energy on one side of the earth than on the other?

It acts unidirectionally throughout the Universe. That direction we call "up".

Ripples in the primordial CMB (caused by dark energy in superclusters) are scattered across the sky. So this is clearly not the case even in the FE model.

Fifth page, not even an attempt to actually answer the question.

How does gravity work again?

How do you define gravity?

Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?

 The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

That, however would also include gravitation, which we know to be an entirely different thing. Thus your very definition of the word is flawed.

The gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2): a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force

So that's how you define gravity. Now could you please, at last, explain how the hell it works?

How does gravity work?  Noone can be sure at this time.

There are two forces in nature that we experience every day: gravity and magnetism. You may have magnets on your refrigerator, and you know that a magnet will attract a refrigerator with a certain amount of force. The force depends on the strength of the magnet and the distance between the magnet and the metal. Gravity is the other common force. Newton in the 1600's was the first person to study it seriously, and he came up with the law of universal gravitation: “Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.” It adds up to a rather powerful force. It is also interesting to think about the fact that every atom attracts every other atom in the universe in some small way! Starting with the great physicist Michael Faraday in 1849, physicists have searched continually for a hidden relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force.

Why atoms attract one another is still not fully understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unifying theory. Gravity holds us firmly on the ground and keeps the earth circling the sun. This invisible force also draws down rain from the sky and causes the daily ocean tides. It keeps the earth in a spherical shape. In many ways, gravity remains a profound mystery.

Gravity cannot be shielded in any way. Neither does gravity depend on the chemical composition of objects, but only on their mass, which we perceive as weight. Blocks composed of glass, lead, ice or even styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will experience (and exert) identical gravitational forces. These are experimental findings, with no underlying theoretical explanation. Attempts to explain gravity have included invisible particles, called gravitons, that travel between objects. The final explanation may come two days from now or two hundred years from now.

Gravity, as in the magical force generated by all mass in RE. How do you define it?

The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

Theories have been proposed that extend the standard model with gravitons although these have issues on high-energy scale. String Theory overcomes these problems but is far from being proven. The standard model is still awaiting the prove of or against the Higgs particle (the particle that provides the mass itself) so there is a long way to go. So far modern science don't know what causes the actual gravitation. We can only submit to the fact that General Relativity provides amazing mathematical tools to describe curvature of space-time that has yet to be disproved. We've been through this many times. No one knows the mechanism yet. Neither RE of FE.