Intelligent discussion

if you notices the sun is different each season. on winter days the sun shines less during the day.

with the round earth it is easely explained because the earth rotates on its axis. if the flat earth thery was to be correct then the sun would shine equaly long on each day. which is does not(of course if this is also part of the "conspiricy")

With the flat Earth seasons are easily explained because the sun orbits the equator over the course of the year and wobbles a bit from north to south, as I'm sure you read in the FAQ. What this means is that the seasons would work exactly the same as they would on a RE, the sun not shining equally each day is not the cause of the seasons, rather, it is a result of the suns apparent movement from north to south over the course of a year. The only difference between the FE and RE versions of seasons is that on the RE model the Earth rotates the sun, whereas on the FE model it is the sun that moves about the Earth.

still another reason is the correolis effect.

The Coriolis effect has never been satisfactorily explained for a FE, but even on the RE it has nothing to do with Earths movement around the sun, it is caused by Earths rotation from East to west.

No, you don't.  This is where relativity get's more flakey.  Mass increase due to acceleration is not relative.

Quick question (I don't care who answers). If acceleration is relative, how can the mass increase due to acceleration not be relative?

Also as for mass, I asked my physicist about how there was no fixed point where velocity or acceleration can be determined, his reply:

Quote

"When you say "fixed point", I assume you mean that there is no point that is not moving.   However, since relativity indicates that mass increases with velocity, it would be possible to determine a state of "zero velocity" by firing rocket, etc until you have minimized your mass.  Of course, the actual mass increases at normal speeds is so small that actually achieving  this state resides solely in the relm of theory."

Interesting.... it sounds like he's suggesting that as we fire a rocket that we're sitting on/in/whatever, our mass will increase.  This is not the case: since we are always moving the same speed relative to ourselves, we will always only measure our rest mass.

If you believe relativity, you believe that there is no fixed frame of reference for position or velocity.

I could just be misreading the quote, of course.

eliminate the source of gravity and the effect spreads at the speed of light, in the accelerating model, there would be no effect, unless the oject eliminated is the source of acceleration.

Well that's a pretty big "unless": turns out if you make the flat Earth not be there anymore, then the thing that was pushing up on you isn't there to push up on you, so you feel no acceleration.

The only way to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration is to make nonlocal measurements of the curvature of spacetime.  I.e. one measurement here, and another over there.  If you come up with some other way to determine what you're experiencing, either it won't work or it will be equivalent to this method.

But much more simple is the demonstration that objects radiate gravity, a massive object, suspended next to an extremely light object, which is also suspended, with the same electronic potential (to eliminate static electrical effects) will measurably effect the position of the lighter object following the equations established for gravitational effects.  How does acceleration account for that?

Acceleration doesn't, but then again, it's a nonlocal measurement.

Also, comet tails point away from the sun,

That's an electromagnetic effect, not a gravitational one.

Even the paths of the planets make no sense until you plot them as making circles around the sun, with the earth joining them.  That's why they were called planets.

Well, you can use interrotating ellipses, actually.  They seem to do a pretty good job of modelling planet's geocentric motion.

And, the reason they are called planets is because they don't stay in one place relative to the "fixed" stars.

-Erasmus

Quick question (I don't care who answers). If acceleration is relative, how can the mass increase due to acceleration not be relative?

Mass is not a function of acceleration, but of relative velocity.  In other words, an object can be accelerating very fast but moving very slow and would thus have little relativistic mass.  Or, the object could be moving very very fast but at a constant rate and thus have high relativistic mass.

The whole way in which it's relative is that it's different depending on relative velocity.

-Erasmus

From a NASA article:
(http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lightspeed_031217.html)

I wouldn't trust NASA with computations too much, after all they are the ones that forgot to convert metric units into american and wrecked Mars orbiter a while ago, not to mention that they are involved in the conspiracy against FE.

There is a much easier way to find out if light is slowing down or not. Simply collect all data on the light speed since it was first measured and compare it. Because when you start playing with cosmic rays and radiation of distant galaxies, assumptions, unknown and uncontrolable variables start to pop up like mushroom after the rain.

I wouldn't trust NASA with computations too much, after all they are the ones that forgot to convert metric units into american and wrecked Mars orbiter a while ago,

I'm pretty sure that at some point you made a spelling mistake, so obviously I shouldn't trust anything you say.  It's just too error prone.

Oh, and, you haven't exactly built any large, complex mechanical devices that actually worked, to make up for your error.

-Erasmus

The only way to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration is to make nonlocal measurements of the curvature of spacetime.  I.e. one measurement here, and another over there.  If you come up with some other way to determine what you're experiencing, either it won't work or it will be equivalent to this method.

So the fact that weight is different on top of a high mountain, or at the poles when compaired to weight at the equator is definitive proof?

So the fact that weight is different on top of a high mountain, or at the poles when compaired to weight at the equator is definitive proof?

Well it would definitely be definitive proof that the FE explanation for gravity isn't complete, but it wouldn't be definitive proof that the FE explanation for gravity is completely wrong.

Also, it would be preferable to have an experiment we can do ourselves.  The mountaintop thing is potentially good for that, but I think you need fairly sensitive equipment.

On a round Earth, the difference in the weight of an object atop, say, Mt. Everest.  Rough calculations show that an object atop Mt. Everest would way 99.723% its sea-level weight.  I imagine it will be difficult to carry sufficiently sensitive equipment to the summit.  At lower elevations, obviously, the difference will be even smaller.

-Erasmus

On a round Earth, the difference in the weight of an object atop, say, Mt. Everest.  Rough calculations show that an object atop Mt. Everest would way 99.723% its sea-level weight.  I imagine it will be difficult to carry sufficiently sensitive equipment to the summit.  At lower elevations, obviously, the difference will be even smaller.
-Erasmus

Matched what I posted in the Gravity thread, actually I was picturing doing the experiment with a high altitude weather balloon, but there would be a few technical difficulties there too.

Had a stray thought with the celestial bodies portion of the Flat Earth.  Is it the common conjecture that the Earth is stationary with respect to the stars, and that they are moving?

Quote from: "sven1988uk"

So speed changes depending on weight?

An objects speed while falling on the earth has nothing to do with it's weight. All objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second towards the ground. The only reason objects like paper "fall" more slowly is because of air resistance (paper is less dense that an anvil, so it has a harder time moving the air out of it's way).

Air resistance would mean the paper is FALLING.

If the earth was moving UP the paper would go down at the same speed an anvil would

Air resistance would mean the paper is FALLING.

If the earth was moving UP the paper would go down at the same speed an anvil would

Not since the ground would also be pushing the air up, which would in turn be pushing the paper. The anvil? Not so much. Air resistance and terminal velocity works the same in accelerating FE as it does in gravitational RE.

Need I reiterate?  The round Earth and flat Earth models of gravity are locally the same.  We can  stop talking about this now.

-Erasmus

Need I reiterate?  The round Earth and flat Earth models of gravity are locally the same.  We can  stop talking about this now.

-Erasmus

There are one or two important differences.

With gravity,  the atmosphere need not be contained, with a flat earth, the ice wall would need to be high enough to contain the air, not just what we breath, and what we see airplanes fly through, but high enough that a column of air weigh 14+ lbs at the base.  

There is the fact that gravity has been demonstraited, so even if most of the downward pull we experience is really acceleration, there still is garity to take into account, and with gravity,  the flat earth becomes unbalanced.

With gravity,  the atmosphere need not be contained, with a flat earth, the ice wall would need to be high enough to contain the air, not just what we breath, and what we see airplanes fly through, but high enough that a column of air weigh 14+ lbs at the base.

This is not a "difference" between FE gravity and RE gravity, but it is a good point.

According to my calculations, assuming the atmosphere doesn't get less dense as you go up in altitude, it must be over 8.6 km  thick in order to induce the pressure we experience at sea level (101.3 kPa).

If you believe the atmosphere does indeed get thinner as you go up, then this is just a lower bound, since we need a thicker atmosphere to compensate for the thinner air.

Thus whatever extra effect you're going to heap on top of the Ice Wall to explain why the air doesn't flow off the edge of the Earth needs to support an atmosphere almost 9 km thick.

-Erasmus