"Falling" towards the earth

  • 365 Replies
  • 93695 Views
?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #180 on: April 24, 2009, 04:56:05 PM »
Where does the UA originate from?

Where does the expansion of the universe in RE 'originate' from?

When God said "Let there be light."

It didn't begin from a pinpoint.  It began from nothing.  The only conflict between the Bible and the Big Bang is a pinpoint.


?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #181 on: April 24, 2009, 04:58:38 PM »
Let's just play a game here Steven. Pretend I'm neutral in this whole endeavour - I have been ignorant of either theory for all my life, and now I wish to be taught.  Now, can you teach me as to why it is better to believe the theory accepted by a select few, than one accepted by millions around the world, when both have an equal lacking in their mechanisms? When there are thousands of independent sources of information for one theory and about a dozen for another, what would compel me to believe the latter?

The fact that your eyes clearly tell you that the Earth is flat.

I have seen the earth as seen from a photograph taken from the moon, and the earth certainly looks round to me.

The earth is too big to see it's roundness while standing in a parking lot.

 ::)


?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #182 on: April 24, 2009, 04:59:49 PM »
Now, can you teach me as to why it is better to believe the theory accepted by a select few, than one accepted by millions around the world, when both have an equal lacking in their mechanisms?
Fallacy.

Explain.


*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #183 on: April 24, 2009, 05:32:00 PM »
Appeal to popularity, something you learned in high school English.


*

Delthan

  • 179
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #185 on: April 25, 2009, 03:15:16 AM »
Appeal to popularity, something you learned in high school English.

Fortunately, I didn't attend attend Cliche High School
« Last Edit: April 25, 2009, 04:39:40 PM by Delthan »
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.

?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #186 on: April 25, 2009, 03:42:25 AM »
Appeal to popularity, something you learned in high school English.

Verify with evidence, something I learned in high school science.


?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #187 on: April 25, 2009, 03:55:38 AM »
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
http://astro.physics.sc.edu/selfpacedunits/Unit57.html

I fail to see your point in this link, but I noticed at least three illistrations of a round earth.  I also seriously question someone who believes he could be in a accelerating space ship while standing in an elevator.


*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #188 on: April 25, 2009, 04:01:04 AM »
I also seriously question someone who believes he could be in a accelerating space ship while standing in an elevator.

Learn physics, then return.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #189 on: April 25, 2009, 10:26:55 AM »
I also seriously question someone who believes he could be in a accelerating space ship while standing in an elevator.

Learn physics, then return.

I know what physics are, I also know what reality is.

There are no elevators on a spaceship, unless you believe the Star Trek Enterprise is actually somewhere out there.

Of course, if you believe space travel is impossible, then that rules that out.

Try again.


*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #190 on: April 25, 2009, 10:29:27 AM »
I know what physics are

I am referring to the branch of science, sir. Not the plural of "physic", which is another matter entirely. Learn it, will you?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #191 on: April 25, 2009, 04:42:58 PM »
Verify with evidence, something I learned in high school science.
Please learn to read the post I quoted again.

I fail to see your point in this link, but I noticed at least three illistrations of a round earth.  I also seriously question someone who believes he could be in a accelerating space ship while standing in an elevator.
So in other words, you're an ignorant. Two reasons why your link is inferior:

1. General Relativity proves Newton's theory false.
2. The elevator experiment proves that an observer standing inside an accelerating elevator at 9.8m/s2 is the same thing as an observer resting on Earth under a gravitational field; thus, what we feel as "gravity" is basically us undergoing constant proper acceleration, which means the "force of gravity" does not exist and is replaced by acceleration.

?

roadhumper

  • 32
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #192 on: April 25, 2009, 05:53:30 PM »
1. General Relativity proves Newton's theory false.

I doubt it. In fact I believe its possible to derive Newtonian theory from General Relativity.

Also you fail to understand that the equivelence principle only applies to small volumes and small units of time.

Keep on failing trukcer.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #193 on: April 25, 2009, 06:11:16 PM »
I doubt it. In fact I believe its possible to derive Newtonian theory from General Relativity.
So, that doesn't mean Newtonian theory is true; General Relativity still proved it false. Your argument is weak.

Also you fail to understand that the equivelence principle only applies to small volumes and small units of time.
No, it applies to an area where there are extremely little tidal effects and gravitational field is homogeneous. "Small volumes and small units of time" is derived from that, in layman terms. The concept still applies. Please do more research on it.

Keep on failing trukcer.
What's a "trukcer"?

?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #194 on: April 26, 2009, 08:22:07 AM »
I know what physics are

I am referring to the branch of science, sir. Not the plural of "physic", which is another matter entirely. Learn it, will you?

I realize this, sir.  Your sarcasm is completely counter-prodoctive to a logical debate, so would you please cut that diversion crap and debate the facts at hand instead of trying to make me out as a fool in your feeble attempt at winning an argument?


?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #195 on: April 26, 2009, 08:28:06 AM »
Verify with evidence, something I learned in high school science.
Please learn to read the post I quoted again.

I fail to see your point in this link, but I noticed at least three illistrations of a round earth.  I also seriously question someone who believes he could be in a accelerating space ship while standing in an elevator.
So in other words, you're an ignorant. Two reasons why your link is inferior:

1. General Relativity proves Newton's theory false.
2. The elevator experiment proves that an observer standing inside an accelerating elevator at 9.8m/s2 is the same thing as an observer resting on Earth under a gravitational field; thus, what we feel as "gravity" is basically us undergoing constant proper acceleration, which means the "force of gravity" does not exist and is replaced by acceleration.

Which is total bullcrap because there is NO evidence to even suggest we are accelerating.  None.  Zip, ziltch, zero.

Newton's "theory" is not a theory, it is a LAW.  A law is defined as a theory which has been PROVED.  This proves your statement is inferior.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/index.cfm

?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #196 on: April 26, 2009, 08:30:50 AM »
I doubt it. In fact I believe its possible to derive Newtonian theory from General Relativity.
So, that doesn't mean Newtonian theory is true; General Relativity still proved it false. Your argument is weak.

Also you fail to understand that the equivelence principle only applies to small volumes and small units of time.
No, it applies to an area where there are extremely little tidal effects and gravitational field is homogeneous. "Small volumes and small units of time" is derived from that, in layman terms. The concept still applies. Please do more research on it.

Keep on failing trukcer.
What's a "trukcer"?


Nothing has "proved" Newton's law false.  Only in the mind of the ignorant.  Please do more research on this.



?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #197 on: April 26, 2009, 08:32:53 AM »
I doubt it. In fact I believe its possible to derive Newtonian theory from General Relativity.
So, that doesn't mean Newtonian theory is true; General Relativity still proved it false. Your argument is weak.

Also you fail to understand that the equivelence principle only applies to small volumes and small units of time.
No, it applies to an area where there are extremely little tidal effects and gravitational field is homogeneous. "Small volumes and small units of time" is derived from that, in layman terms. The concept still applies. Please do more research on it.

Keep on failing trukcer.
What's a "trukcer"?


It is a technique used by people with extremely weak arguments to divert the subject from the argument itself to a vain attempt at discrediting a talking point in an attempt to discredit the talking point itself by pointing out a spelling error.


?

Sir_Drainsalot

  • 2798
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #198 on: April 26, 2009, 10:58:12 AM »
Which is total bullcrap because there is NO evidence to even suggest we are accelerating.  None.  Zip, ziltch, zero.

So things dont fall downwards in your world?  ??? Must be a strange place.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #199 on: April 26, 2009, 12:04:23 PM »
Which is total bullcrap because there is NO evidence to even suggest we are accelerating.  None.  Zip, ziltch, zero.
When you are standing on the ground, you are accelerating. Take an accelerometer and read.

Newton's "theory" is not a theory, it is a LAW.  A law is defined as a theory which has been PROVED. 
I don't mind the three laws of Newton. I'm talking about your article on Newton's theory of gravity. That theory has been proven false by modern physics.

This proves your statement is inferior.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/index.cfm
Wow, you have proved General Relativity false with Newton's three laws! A Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

Nothing has "proved" Newton's law false.  Only in the mind of the ignorant.  Please do more research on this.
It seems that you're a few centuries behind. Welcome to the 21st century.

?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #200 on: April 26, 2009, 06:17:20 PM »
Which is total bullcrap because there is NO evidence to even suggest we are accelerating.  None.  Zip, ziltch, zero.

So things dont fall downwards in your world?  ??? Must be a strange place.

There you go.  You just admitted things fall downward instead of the earth catching up with it.  You must be doing your reasarch.


?

bgamelson

  • 172
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #201 on: April 26, 2009, 06:42:04 PM »

When you are standing on the ground, you are accelerating. Take an accelerometer and read.

An accelerometer measures the acceleration it experiences relative to freefall. This is equivalent to inertial acceleration minus the local gravitational acceleration, where inertial acceleration is understood in the Newtonian sense of acceleration with respect to a fixed reference frame, which the Earth is often considered to approximate.

As a consequence, quite counter-intuitively, an accelerometer at rest on the Earth's surface will actually indicate 1 g upwards along the vertical axis. To obtain the inertial acceleration (due to motion alone), this gravity offset must be subtracted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer

I don't mind the three laws of Newton. I'm talking about your article on Newton's theory of gravity. That theory has been proven false by modern physics.

Show me your evidence of this.

Wow, you have proved General Relativity false with Newton's three laws! A Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the current description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

It seems that you're a few centuries behind. Welcome to the 21st century.

Actually, you are the one who is a few centuries behind as the earth was proved round centuries ago.

Since radio signals travel in a straight line, in a FE senerio, it would be impossible for a directed signal to travel hoizontally Eastward and reflect off the earth's atmosphere and travel back down to the ground where it reflects off the ground back to the atmpsphere in an accordian pattern and eventually make it all the way around the earth where the signal is picked up by a directional antenna pointing Westward.  This is called "skywave propagation." It is known in the CB radio world as "skip."

Skywave propagation is the propagation of electromagnetic waves bent (refracted) back to the Earth's surface by the ionosphere. As a result of skywave propagation, a broadcast signal from a distant AM broadcasting station at night, or from a shortwave radio station (or during sporadic e season, a low band TV station) can sometimes be heard as clearly as local stations. (This is distinct from "groundwave" propagation, which is direct from transmitter to radio). Most long-distance HF radio communication (between 3 and 30 MHz) is a result of skywave propagation. Since the early 1920s amateur radio operators, limited to lower transmitter power than commercial radio, have taken advantage of skywave for long distance or DX communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

Since it can be daylight in NYC and dark in London, in the FE senerio, it would be impossible for an airplane to make a trip from NY to London unless London was on the other side of the flat earth.  What kind of acrobatic maneuver do you believe an airplane makes as they travel over the edge?  Perhaps all the passengers that travel from NY to London each and every day are in on this conspiracy, yes?  Or perhaps London does not exist?

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 06:45:37 PM by bgamelson »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #202 on: April 26, 2009, 06:46:27 PM »
Quote
Actually, you are the one who is a few centuries behind as the earth was proved round centuries ago.

Who proved that the earth was round centuries ago?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #203 on: April 26, 2009, 07:23:08 PM »
An accelerometer measures the acceleration it experiences relative to freefall. This is equivalent to inertial acceleration minus the local gravitational acceleration, where inertial acceleration is understood in the Newtonian sense of acceleration with respect to a fixed reference frame, which the Earth is often considered to approximate.

As a consequence, quite counter-intuitively, an accelerometer at rest on the Earth's surface will actually indicate 1 g upwards along the vertical axis. To obtain the inertial acceleration (due to motion alone), this gravity offset must be subtracted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
Please learn to read.

Show me your evidence of this.
See: General Relativity.

General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the current description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Why do you cite sources you don't even know? Right, he unifies the concepts of SR and Newton in a way to replace them with his more correct theory. Einstein already concluded that what we feel as gravity is basically us undergoing acceleration while standing on the ground; he stated that gravity is just a fictitious force felt by an accelerating observer. He was right, as an accelerometer do read 1g on the surface. He was also right that free-fall is an inertial motion along geodesics, unlike Newton's prediction that free-fall is an acceleration by gravity. Therefore, since gravity is just a fictitious (unreal) force, Newton's idea was wrong. To add to that, Einstein figured out the speed of gravity (same as the speed of light), which blew in the face of Newton's spooky action at a distance, as Newton's theory requires that gravity must travel instantaneously.

Oh look, I can cite wikipedia as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_Principle
Quote
In the physics of relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

It seems that you're a few centuries behind. Welcome to the 21st century.

Actually, you are the one who is a few centuries behind as the earth was proved round centuries ago.

Since radio signals travel in a straight line, in a FE senerio, it would be impossible for a directed signal to travel hoizontally Eastward and reflect off the earth's atmosphere and travel back down to the ground where it reflects off the ground back to the atmpsphere in an accordian pattern and eventually make it all the way around the earth where the signal is picked up by a directional antenna pointing Westward.  This is called "skywave propagation." It is known in the CB radio world as "skip."

Skywave propagation is the propagation of electromagnetic waves bent (refracted) back to the Earth's surface by the ionosphere. As a result of skywave propagation, a broadcast signal from a distant AM broadcasting station at night, or from a shortwave radio station (or during sporadic e season, a low band TV station) can sometimes be heard as clearly as local stations. (This is distinct from "groundwave" propagation, which is direct from transmitter to radio). Most long-distance HF radio communication (between 3 and 30 MHz) is a result of skywave propagation. Since the early 1920s amateur radio operators, limited to lower transmitter power than commercial radio, have taken advantage of skywave for long distance or DX communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

Since it can be daylight in NYC and dark in London, in the FE senerio, it would be impossible for an airplane to make a trip from NY to London unless London was on the other side of the flat earth.  What kind of acrobatic maneuver do you believe an airplane makes as they travel over the edge?  Perhaps all the passengers that travel from NY to London each and every day are in on this conspiracy, yes?  Or perhaps London does not exist?

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
We're debating about your ignorance in gravitation and modern physics. Please don't switch the topic.


EDIT: Read the gravity sticky, since you seem to be out of touch.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 07:30:48 PM by Jack »

?

Sir_Drainsalot

  • 2798
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #204 on: April 27, 2009, 04:29:56 AM »
Which is total bullcrap because there is NO evidence to even suggest we are accelerating.  None.  Zip, ziltch, zero.

So things dont fall downwards in your world?  ??? Must be a strange place.

There you go.  You just admitted things fall downward instead of the earth catching up with it.  You must be doing your reasarch.



And you can tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation? How about you tell me one simple experiment I can do to verify that things accelerate down rather than the earth accelerates up?

?

astrofan

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #205 on: April 27, 2009, 11:59:09 AM »
Why do you cite sources you don't even know? Right, he unifies the concepts of SR and Newton in a way to replace them with his more correct theory. Einstein already concluded that what we feel as gravity is basically us undergoing acceleration while standing on the ground; he stated that gravity is just a fictitious force felt by an accelerating observer. He was right, as an accelerometer do read 1g on the surface. He was also right that free-fall is an inertial motion along geodesics, unlike Newton's prediction that free-fall is an acceleration by gravity. Therefore, since gravity is just a fictitious (unreal) force, Newton's idea was wrong. To add to that, Einstein figured out the speed of gravity (same as the speed of light), which blew in the face of Newton's spooky action at a distance, as Newton's theory requires that gravity must travel instantaneously.

All very nice Real Earth physics history. Now how does any of that show the earth is flat again?

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #206 on: April 27, 2009, 12:02:37 PM »
Why do you cite sources you don't even know? Right, he unifies the concepts of SR and Newton in a way to replace them with his more correct theory. Einstein already concluded that what we feel as gravity is basically us undergoing acceleration while standing on the ground; he stated that gravity is just a fictitious force felt by an accelerating observer. He was right, as an accelerometer do read 1g on the surface. He was also right that free-fall is an inertial motion along geodesics, unlike Newton's prediction that free-fall is an acceleration by gravity. Therefore, since gravity is just a fictitious (unreal) force, Newton's idea was wrong. To add to that, Einstein figured out the speed of gravity (same as the speed of light), which blew in the face of Newton's spooky action at a distance, as Newton's theory requires that gravity must travel instantaneously.

All very nice Real Earth physics history. Now how does any of that show the earth is flat again?

How does it show the Earth is round?
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

astrofan

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #207 on: April 27, 2009, 12:10:16 PM »
How does it show the Earth is round?

Because there is an attraction between masses.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #208 on: April 27, 2009, 12:55:29 PM »
How does it show the Earth is round?

Because there is an attraction between masses.

...which shows that the Earth is round how exactly?
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

astrofan

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #209 on: April 27, 2009, 01:52:56 PM »
How does it show the Earth is round?

Because there is an attraction between masses.

...which shows that the Earth is round how exactly?

Its a principle of flat earth theory that the earth and all other things are uniformly accelerating upwards. This is demonstrably not the case, an attraction exists between all matter.

Now accepting this attraction, if the earth were flat then the heavens would crash to earth. Given how close you place the sun, this shouldn't take too long.