Time Dilation

OBLsteve... thanks, I now understand your model.

I believe it's completely wrong though, because even you gotta switch methods when evaluating the "gravitational" effects at different surface spots and "gravitational" effects at different altitudes. In my model, I'd be happy taking the center of mass argument for both and hence get the inconsistencies in outcome that I've been discussing.

I suspect the only way we'd agree on this is if one of us (not me) went and did the math. We'd need a 3 dimensional density function for your infinite earth and we'd have to integrate over the whole volume of the earth to determine the center of mass and, if we went to that trouble, we could also modify that integral to include these gravitational effects and then see what calculus has to say about the matter.

I suspect (as I always have) that you'd be unable to have a center of mass at infinity which results in a non-zero "gravitational" effect at the surface (with finite mass). It's not clear to me that anything less than the calculus approach would convince you otherwise.

Regarding this "Gravity" and "Gravitation" debate... I do wish the FEers would be a bit more tolerant of the use. The typical FEer reacts as strongly to poor use of these words as if they were as bad as confusing "Gravity" with "Temperature", or "Taxes" or "Teapots". I would suggest that FEers gently correct careless RE use of "gravity" in responses and only get belligerent about it if the RE use is unable to be easily excused. For example, saying that "gravity" accounts for the precession of Mercury's orbit would be inexcusable. Saying REers believe "gravity" keeps us on the surface of the earth, would be OK.

I suspect (as I always have) that you'd be unable to have a center of mass at infinity which results in a non-zero "gravitational" effect at the surface (with finite mass). It's not clear to me that anything less than the calculus approach would convince you otherwise.

If you are correct, then someone will need to explain to me how an infinite number of nonzero vectors all pointing in the same direction can sum to zero.

Quote from: oldsoldier on September 11, 2008, 11:01:21 AM

I suspect (as I always have) that you'd be unable to have a center of mass at infinity which results in a non-zero "gravitational" effect at the surface (with finite mass). It's not clear to me that anything less than the calculus approach would convince you otherwise.

If you are correct, then someone will need to explain to me how an infinite number of nonzero vectors all pointing in the same direction can sum to zero.

1/2 answer 1/2 question back-at-you

Firstly it wouldn't be an infinite number of non-zero vectors as we've both agreed that we're talking a finite earth here. But that's just a clarification, other than that, I don't take exception to your statement.

Secondly, if you're correct, someone will need to explain to me how an infinite number of nonzero vectors all pointing in the same direction can be represented by a center of mass at infinity.

Firstly it wouldn't be an infinite number of non-zero vectors as we've both agreed that we're talking a finite earth here. But that's just a clarification, other than that, I don't take exception to your statement.

If you divide up the Earth into equal volumes, rather than equal masses, then in the idealised mathematical model there would be an infinite number of nonzero vectors.

Secondly, if you're correct, someone will need to explain to me how an infinite number of nonzero vectors all pointing in the same direction can be represented by a center of mass at infinity.

Because no matter how far away you postulate the centre of mass to be, there will always be more mass beyond the point at which there is equal mass on the far side to that which there is on the near side.

If you divide up the Earth into equal volumes, rather than equal masses, then in the idealised mathematical model there would be an infinite number of nonzero vectors.

Error! 

If you are still using your stupid model where the middle is high vacuum, then there would be some of those volumes that contain no atoms at all, and so have zero vectors.  There would only be a finite number of ones with atoms in them, and so an infinate number with nothing in them. 

You fail again. 

Because no matter how far away you postulate the centre of mass to be, there will always be more mass beyond the point at which there is equal mass on the far side to that which there is on the near side.

Still sounds like you're claiming    infinity + 1 does not equal infinity.

I'll come out and admit I do not know what the center of mass of a "ray-like" cylindrical solid is. I seriously doubt it's a point, but previously you claimed it was. However, since you are also postulating a non-uniform density function, it could very well be that your density function does yield a point for the center of mass of such an object.

However, given your density function, I don't know why (or forgot why) you need a center of mass at infinity. Seems like you can get the surface behavior you want with the density function (although I have a vague misgiving about it that I may go into later), and if you stop claiming the center of mass is at infinity I can give you the different effect at altitude. So... why are you arguing for a center of mass at infinity again?

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 11, 2008, 03:28:13 PM

If you divide up the Earth into equal volumes, rather than equal masses, then in the idealised mathematical model there would be an infinite number of nonzero vectors.

Error! 

If you are still using your stupid model where the middle is high vacuum, then there would be some of those volumes that contain no atoms at all, and so have zero vectors.  There would only be a finite number of ones with atoms in them, and so an infinate number with nothing in them.

You fail again.

I have emphasised an important part of my post that you seem to have missed.

However, given your density function, I don't know why (or forgot why) you need a center of mass at infinity. Seems like you can get the surface behavior you want with the density function (although I have a vague misgiving about it that I may go into later), and if you stop claiming the center of mass is at infinity I can give you the different effect at altitude. So... why are you arguing for a center of mass at infinity again?

Good point. It may not be infinitely thick after all.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on September 12, 2008, 04:50:16 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 11, 2008, 03:28:13 PM

If you divide up the Earth into equal volumes, rather than equal masses, then in the idealised mathematical model there would be an infinite number of nonzero vectors.

Error! 

If you are still using your stupid model where the middle is high vacuum, then there would be some of those volumes that contain no atoms at all, and so have zero vectors.  There would only be a finite number of ones with atoms in them, and so an infinate number with nothing in them.

You fail again.

I have emphasised an important part of my post that you seem to have missed.

Idealised model != reality. 

You fail again, you were supposed to be explaining reality, but you didn't. 

Idealised model != reality.

You fail again, you were supposed to be explaining reality, but you didn't.

If you smoothed out all the mass in reality, you would get the idealised model. Even if you don't buy that, you can't argue that the sum of a finite number of nonzero vectors all pointing in the same direction is zero, either.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on September 12, 2008, 07:47:00 PM

Idealised model != reality.

You fail again, you were supposed to be explaining reality, but you didn't.

If you smoothed out all the mass in reality, you would get the idealised model. Even if you don't buy that, you can't argue that the sum of a finite number of nonzero vectors all pointing in the same direction is zero, either.

Sorry, you can't use an idealised model like that, that's like saying of you smoothed out all the quanta in light you would get an idealised model, then use that to demonstrate that the UV catastrophe is actually what happens just somehow nobody noticed.  It just doesn't work. 

I don't need to argue that the sum of a finite number of non zero vectors all pointing in the same direction is zero, I never had an arguement based on that.  Your model still achives total fail. 

Lets put an end to this.  Show us how the gravity is the same at sea level everywhere and lower up a mountain using the same model.  I have a model that does that, it is a round earth, you will find it well documented. 

Sorry, you can't use an idealised model like that, that's like saying of you smoothed out all the quanta in light you would get an idealised model, then use that to demonstrate that the UV catastrophe is actually what happens just somehow nobody noticed.  It just doesn't work.

Okay.

I don't need to argue that the sum of a finite number of non zero vectors all pointing in the same direction is zero, I never had an arguement based on that.  Your model still achives total fail.

Those two sentences contradict each other.

Lets put an end to this.  Show us how the gravity is the same at sea level everywhere and lower up a mountain using the same model.  I have a model that does that, it is a round earth, you will find it well documented. 

I have.

I have.

No you haven't.  You explained equal rate of time at sea level by placing centre of mass at infinity, and modelling it as the only vector being towards the centre of mass, and the distance at all points at sealevel to the centre of mass being infinity and therefore equal. 

When using the same model to calculate the time dilation at altitude, that model showed there to be no time dilation, and the rate of time everywhere to be equal. 

You have not shown how any other FE model accounts for equal rate of time at sealevel. 

No you haven't.  You explained equal rate of time at sea level by placing centre of mass at infinity, and modelling it as the only vector being towards the centre of mass, and the distance at all points at sealevel to the centre of mass being infinity and therefore equal. 

When using the same model to calculate the time dilation at altitude, that model showed there to be no time dilation, and the rate of time everywhere to be equal. 

You have not shown how any other FE model accounts for equal rate of time at sealevel.

Please explain how a finite number of nonzero vectors in the same direction can sum to zero.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on September 12, 2008, 08:26:36 PM

No you haven't.  You explained equal rate of time at sea level by placing centre of mass at infinity, and modelling it as the only vector being towards the centre of mass, and the distance at all points at sealevel to the centre of mass being infinity and therefore equal. 

When using the same model to calculate the time dilation at altitude, that model showed there to be no time dilation, and the rate of time everywhere to be equal. 

You have not shown how any other FE model accounts for equal rate of time at sealevel.

Please explain how a finite number of nonzero vectors in the same direction can sum to zero.

You explain it.  Your first model relies on it. 

You explain it.  Your first model relies on it.

No it doesn't.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on September 13, 2008, 06:12:04 AM

You explain it.  Your first model relies on it.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, otherwise things towards the edge would experience gravitation towards the north pole. 

Yes it does, otherwise things towards the edge would experience gravitation towards the north pole. 

Read this thread again.

Your model is shit and doesn't work.  The end. 

FE loses again. 

Your model is shit and doesn't work.  The end. 

FE loses again. 

The new cbarnett? Looks like it.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on September 14, 2008, 06:42:37 AM

Your model is shit and doesn't work.  The end. 

FE loses again. 

The new cbarnett? Looks like it.

No, his model is shit. 

Quote from: sokarul on September 14, 2008, 09:46:11 AM

No, his model is shit. 

Steve warned you about this type of post many times. Are you really this stupid?

It was a valid post.  No more trolling than divito's post.