"Falling" towards the earth

Radial tidal effects are impossible to observe in a drop tower.  Sorry.

'Fraid not.

Quote from: dr.spock on May 14, 2009, 03:27:12 AM

Quote from: Robbyj on May 14, 2009, 03:09:31 AM

Where in your link does it mention tidal effects being observed experimentally then?

I gave you somewhere where they are observed. I told you that its so fundamental it makes up part of Einsteins EP. If you still don't get it call up any of the drop towers and tell them some of your retarded ideas. I'm sure they'll LOL at you.

Radial tidal effects are impossible to observe in a drop tower.  Sorry.

Do you have any evidence or math to support your claim?

Do you have any evidence or maths to support your claim?

Erm, you are aware of how a droptower works, right?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 14, 2009, 05:44:39 AM

Do you have any evidence or math to support your claim?

Erm, you are aware of how a droptower works, right?

Yep.

Do you have any evidence or math to support your claim?

How do you propose that we measure 6 hundreths of a millimeter convergance of an object traveling around 180 km/hr?

Wow you made a meal and a half of that didn't you?

Still you came out with 62um. Personally I'd double it, since you'd be looking at the differential between two falling objects, not the difference from a single object and its difference from tower top and bottom.

Regardless. Let me introduce you to the micrometer:



It measures 100ths of a mm.

Likewise, there's laser equipment that can measure in nm. It's not fucking hard numbnuts.

Wow you made a meal and a half of that didn't you?

I was bored.

Regardless. Let me introduce you to the micrometer:

Great idea, you stand at the bottom and I'll drop the object.

Likewise, there's laser equipment that can measure in nm.

That's wavelength.

Wow you made a meal and a half of that didn't you?

Still you came out with 62um. Personally I'd double it, since you'd be looking at the differential between two falling objects, not the difference from a single object and its difference from tower top and bottom.

Regardless. Let me introduce you to the micrometer:



It measures 100ths of a mm.

Likewise, there's laser equipment that can measure in nm. It's not fucking hard numbnuts.

Dear o dear, a micrometer is not a sensible falling object.

The problem I see is not so much that the change is impossible to detect due to it's size, it's impossible to detect due to the fact that it will be lost in a myriad of other things acting on the objects. If you were to repeatedly drop the objects, I doubt they would fall in exactly the same place every time with an accuracy of a few hundredths of a millimetre.

The problem I see is not so much that the change is impossible to detect due to it's size, it's impossible to detect due to the fact that it will be lost in a myriad of other things acting on the objects. If you were to repeatedly drop the objects, I doubt they would fall in exactly the same place every time with an accuracy of a few hundredths of a millimetre.

Which would be added to the measuring device's error.

That's wavelength.

'Fraid not.

Thanks Robb for the maths review there... now what exactly is the problem everyone has with it?  Are you implying that if you build an optical interferometric cavity with two retro-reflecting mirrors (bearing in mind that they have to be perfectly aligned and not attached to each other in any way), then drop them down the drop tower (presumably at high vacuum to prevent drag from moving your mirrors as they fall), you will see a fringe shift as a result of them converging?  Correct, you will.

Sadly, no one will ever do this experiment, even if it would be quite cool.  If you're up for it, then by all means try it out in your high vacuum droptower - I look forward to seeing the results!!

Thanks Robb for the maths review there... now what exactly is the problem everyone has with it?

Rob seemed to think that we couldn't measure his expected difference. We can.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 14, 2009, 05:44:39 AM

Do you have any evidence or math to support your claim?

How do you propose that we measure 6 hundreths of a millimeter convergance of an object traveling around 180 km/hr?
...

First, you question is flawed in several ways:
1) The convergence is of two objects.
2) Your question assumes a given height and initial separation.
3) Your concern about speed is irrelevant. We need only determine the location that each object passed the "ground line".
4) Your concern about measure is irrelevant. We need only determine that the objects converge, not by how much, to conclude that the Earth is round.

Second, yes, we can, and have, measured to such accuracy. Ask Jack about measuring the tidal forces of GWs.

Could someone answer this question for me? I do not know that much about physics.

How can something weight more than other things, if there was ZERO gravity? Wouldn't everything weight the same - zero kilos? And the only reason it would not "float" away was because of the Upwards Accerating according to FE. But a 100 kilo barbell is easier to lift than a 200 kilo barbell.

Could someone answer this question for me? I do not know that much about physics.

How can something weight more than other things, if there was ZERO gravity? Wouldn't everything weight the same - zero kilos? And the only reason it would not "float" away was because of the Upwards Accerating according to FE. But a 100 kilo barbell is easier to lift than a 200 kilo barbell.

The google search term I'd recommend is: "Equivalence Principle".

FE dodges the first muster using that Principle, but later fails on secondary (non-local) differences.

1) The convergence is of two objects.

I would think it would be harder to measure the two relative to one another than to measure one individually.

2) Your question assumes a given height and initial separation.

Of course it does.  How is this a flaw?

3) Your concern about speed is irrelevant. We need only determine the location that each object passed the "ground line".

High speed adds difficulty to any measurement.

4) Your concern about measure is irrelevant. We need only determine that the objects converge, not by how much

True, but the convergence still must be outside the band of total error for the experiment, so technically how much does matter.

High speed adds difficulty to any measurement.

Another fucking epic post.

Like I say, there's laser equipment perfectly capable of measuring to the required accuracy.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 15, 2009, 02:56:09 PM

1) The convergence is of two objects.

I would think it would be harder to measure the two relative to one another than to measure one individually.

The concept relies on two objects. You've missed the experiment's basic concept.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 15, 2009, 02:56:09 PM

2) Your question assumes a given height and initial separation.

Of course it does.  How is this a flaw?

You challenge us to make a measure under your assumptions. We may be able to make the measurement under different constraints.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 15, 2009, 02:56:09 PM

3) Your concern about speed is irrelevant. We need only determine the location that each object passed the "ground line".

High speed adds difficulty to any measurement.

non sequitur

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 15, 2009, 02:56:09 PM

4) Your concern about measure is irrelevant. We need only determine that the objects converge, not by how much

True, but the convergence still must be outside the band of total error for the experiment, so technically how much does matter.

No. We need only show convergence in statistically more likely than not.

Quote from: Robbyj on May 16, 2009, 01:40:23 AM

Of course it does.  How is this a flaw?

You challenge us to make a measure under your assumptions. We may be able to make the measurement under different constraints.

Those weren't assumption, they were actual dimension's of the 'world's largest' drop tower.

Quote from: Robbyj on May 16, 2009, 01:40:23 AM

High speed adds difficulty to any measurement.

Another fucking epic post.

Like I say, there's laser equipment perfectly capable of measuring to the required accuracy.

Unless the laser emits bendy light.

This may be kind of off-topic, but it relates to the entire post. No amount of "dark energy" could possibly have been accelerating the earth at a constant velocity for this long. Like seriously gaiz, come on. You're assuming that the classical relationship of F = ma holds, but it DOESN'T. For speeds significantly smaller than the speed of light, then this is true. But if the earth has been accelerating for this long, then it is obviously going to be moving at speeds close to the speed of light. At that point, the amount of work that is being done by this "dark force" will not accelerate the earth at a constant rate.

Conclusion: special relativity disproves flat earth (big surprise there lol).

At that point, the amount of work that is being done by this "dark force" will not accelerate the earth at a constant rate.

In our frame of reference it will, and as far as our observations are concerned that is all that matters.

In our frame of reference it will, and as far as our observations are concerned that is all that matters.

So what you're saying is that if I walk off the edge of the Earth, I won't "fall", because I will no longer be in the FE frame of reference. Amirite?

Quote from: Robbyj on June 06, 2009, 02:52:48 PM

In our frame of reference it will, and as far as our observations are concerned that is all that matters.

So what you're saying is that if I walk off the edge of the Earth, I won't "fall", because I will no longer be in the FE frame of reference. Amirite?

You should be accelerated at the same rate as the Earth, so you will appear to 'fly' parallel to the world.  This harks back to a post I started a while ago stating that space flight should be easier on a Flat Earth due to this mechanism.

You should be accelerated at the same rate as the Earth, so you will appear to 'fly' parallel to the world.  This harks back to a post I started a while ago stating that space flight should be easier on a Flat Earth due to this mechanism.

I see. So let me guess, this magical "dark force" will accelerate the person who walked off the edge, as well as the Earth. This is actually significantly different than theories that I've heard from FE's. They say that the ice walls are necessary to hold all the water in
So let me get this straight, there's this "dark force" that ONLY acts on earth (because earth is the most special body in the universe, of course). It also acts on humans. But not stars, the sun, etc. (This is the part where he responds made-up with a "theory" that explains it, which is sooo scientific).

Quote from: Delthan on June 07, 2009, 04:14:03 AM

You should be accelerated at the same rate as the Earth, so you will appear to 'fly' parallel to the world.  This harks back to a post I started a while ago stating that space flight should be easier on a Flat Earth due to this mechanism.

I see. So let me guess, this magical "dark force" will accelerate the person who walked off the edge, as well as the Earth. This is actually significantly different than theories that I've heard from FE's. They say that the ice walls are necessary to hold all the water in
So let me get this straight, there's this "dark force" that ONLY acts on earth (because earth is the most special body in the universe, of course). It also acts on humans. But not stars, the sun, etc. (This is the part where he responds made-up with a "theory" that explains it, which is sooo scientific).

The way I understand it, the Earth, more specifically its base, is made up of a material that impedes the effects of the Dark Energy, but is itself susceptible to its accelerating force.  The biosphere we live on (in?) is a dome above this layer that does not feel the affects of the upward acceleration, so we feel the Earth rising up 'simulating' gravity.  The stars and other celestial bodies are made up of materials that follow this same principle, but most of the Earth, that which makes up the majority of the lithosphere and above is made of material that does not cause gravity (ie does not have its own gravitational pull).  As it is a consensus among FEers that most of the celestial bodies DO have a slight gravitational pull, there is likely a correlation between a material that causes gravity and absorbs the Dark Energy.  I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but if one WERE able to get to the moon in the FE model, standing on 'top' of it would likely be similar to standing on the Earth, ie the Moon itself would stop you from experiencing the 'upward' acceleration.

The way I understand it, the Earth, more specifically its base, is made up of a material that impedes the effects of the Dark Energy, but is itself susceptible to its accelerating force.  The biosphere we live on (in?) is a dome above this layer that does not feel the affects of the upward acceleration, so we feel the Earth rising up 'simulating' gravity.  The stars and other celestial bodies are made up of materials that follow this same principle, but most of the Earth, that which makes up the majority of the lithosphere and above is made of material that does not cause gravity (ie does not have its own gravitational pull).  As it is a consensus among FEers that most of the celestial bodies DO have a slight gravitational pull, there is likely a correlation between a material that causes gravity and absorbs the Dark Energy.  I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but if one WERE able to get to the moon in the FE model, standing on 'top' of it would likely be similar to standing on the Earth, ie the Moon itself would stop you from experiencing the 'upward' acceleration.

Well, that's perfect! That would explain everything xD
But ow do you know that all that you said above is true?

Well, that's perfect! That would explain everything xD
But ow do you know that all that you said above is true?

I meant to say "how", btw.

theres an edit button....