Siphoning

So...

How does siphoning work without gravity on the FE?

Go out and try siphoning yourself. Why does lifting the source tank higher above the destination takemake the rate of water flow increase massively?

I'll get numbers to show you non-believers later but the principle is sound.

Please read the FAQ and search for "Universal Accelerator" (or UA for short).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon#Theory

If I understand the above theory correctly, I think FET would have the same effect with falling liquid and hydrostatic pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon#Theory

If I understand the above theory correctly, I think FET would have the same effect with falling liquid and atmospheric pressure.

Wrong my son.

Siphoning is driven by difference in hydrostatic pressure.

I know it's wikipedia, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_pressure#Hydrostatic_pressure

That explains how gravity is a crucial component.

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:14:32 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon#Theory

If I understand the above theory correctly, I think FET would have the same effect with falling liquid and atmospheric pressure.

Wrong my son.

Siphoning is driven by difference in hydrostatic pressure.

I know it's wikipedia, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_pressure#Hydrostatic_pressure

That explains how gravity is a crucial component.

Yes, thanks. After reading the wikipedia article I linked to, I skimmed through it to see what the name of the pressure was, and incorrectly copied "atmospheric" from the sentence which said it was NOT atmospheric pressure. I corrected my post. Now, since an accelerating earth has the same effect on liquids as gravity in RET, what is your argument?

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:14:32 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon#Theory

If I understand the above theory correctly, I think FET would have the same effect with falling liquid and atmospheric pressure.

Wrong my son.

Siphoning is driven by difference in hydrostatic pressure.

I know it's wikipedia, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_pressure#Hydrostatic_pressure

That explains how gravity is a crucial component.

Please note that FE'ers deny gravity as a force, but not gravitation as an effect.  Although most of the rest of the scientific community uses the terms gravity and gravitation pretty much interchangeably, that is not the case on this board.

Please not that FE'ers deny gravity as a force, but not gravitation as an effect.  Although most of the rest of the scientific community uses the terms gravity and gravitation pretty much interchangeably, that is not the case on this board.

Actually, they only deny gravity at some times and acknowledge it at others.  They say the sun and other stuff has it which causes the reduction of the force with altitude.  It's just that the "Earth is different" from other objects and so it doesn't have gravity.  This claim, like all the others has no basis in reality and they admit they have no explanation for it or reason to believe it except that it must be in order to prop up the rest of FET.  "Oh the web we weave."

Having said all that, I agree with the FE'ers that IF (big if) you accept what they say about the UA, it would account for siphoning and any other indications of gravity, since gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable to the isolated observer.  FE'ers, if I'm wrong about this, please correct me.

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2009, 12:15:16 PM

Please not that FE'ers deny gravity as a force, but not gravitation as an effect.  Although most of the rest of the scientific community uses the terms gravity and gravitation pretty much interchangeably, that is not the case on this board.

Actually, they only deny gravity at some times and acknowledge it at others.  They say the sun and other stuff has it which causes the reduction of the force with altitude.  It's just that the "Earth is different" from other objects and so it doesn't have gravity.  This claim, like all the others has no basis in reality and they admit they have no explanation for it or reason to believe it except that it must be in order to prop up the rest of FET.  "Oh the web we weave."

Actually, FE'ers generally say that celestial objects have a gravitational influence.  They're usually vague about the mechanism (sometimes they will attribute it as an electromagnetic force).

So...

How does siphoning work without gravity on the FE?

Go out and try siphoning yourself. Why does lifting the source tank higher above the destination takemake the rate of water flow increase massively?

I'll get numbers to show you non-believers later but the principle is sound.

Pumps work too, you know...

Quote from: julianmartin on June 29, 2009, 11:51:42 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:14:32 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon#Theory

If I understand the above theory correctly, I think FET would have the same effect with falling liquid and atmospheric pressure.

Wrong my son.

Siphoning is driven by difference in hydrostatic pressure.

I know it's wikipedia, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_pressure#Hydrostatic_pressure

That explains how gravity is a crucial component.

Please note that FE'ers deny gravity as a force, but not gravitation as an effect.  Although most of the rest of the scientific community uses the terms gravity and gravitation pretty much interchangeably, that is not the case on this board.

Yeah but gravitation is not the same thing this case.

Hydrostatic pressure equations have a very important factor which is the distance from the surface of the gravitional force or source of gravity, i.e earths surface. The distance from the surface directly modulates the effect of gravity on hydrostatic pressure. Thus, I cannot understand how a meter higher from a surface that is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 would make a difference in this sense?

Please explain. The FAQ cannot help here.

And cdenley, no, you are completely wrong. Not a difference in spelling. It is a difference in hydrostatic pressure, as in a mathematical difference, not a grammatical difference. Distance from the surface of gravitational pressure or gravity, whatever you want to call it, has a direct effect on hydrostatic pressure; and barely on atmospheric pressure which is a completely differnet story so don't drag it into this.

Edit: Why has this been moved to General Discussion? Disappointed with the moderators here.

I just did some siphoning and guess what?

Moving the source liquid a meter higher greatly increases the flow of the liquid!
OMG gravity does exist.

I don't see how the flat earth apparently accelerating up could have this effect, also for that matter Universal Acceleration indicates that the earth is accelerating. If the earth is accelerating how long before we hit the speed of light? And what speed are we currently travelling at?
By calculation if we were accelerating at 9.98 m/s^2 we would hit the speed of light in less than a year (300x10^6 / 9.98 = 348 days), modern day physics has proven that only particles that have no mass can travel at the speed of light so the earth cannot accelerate to this speed so would slow down as we get closer to the speed of light and no longer travel at 9.98 m/s ^ 2.

You're forgetting about relativity and time dialation, noob.

The theory of relativity is one of Einsteins theories that explains gravity!
So you are infact the noob.

Also you shouldnt rely on Albert Einsteins theories as he believed the earth was round.

Perhaps I don't understand the concept, but I still think its not about which is closer to the earth, but which half of the tube has more liquid (more mass). Try this: Put one end of the tube at an angle, the other vertical. Make sure the bottom of the angled tube is higher than the bottom of the vertical tube, but has more liquid in it. Which end does the liquid come out?

For crying out loud, go take a fluid mechanics course. The rate of flow has nothing to do with the distance from the surface of the Earth, it's related to the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the destination.

You said it yourself robosteve.
Gravitational potential!

But you are wrong about not having anything to do with distance from the earth, hydrostatic pressure on a liquid is directly proportional to its height above the earth. Hydrostatic pressure cannot be explained in the FEM. And no its not in the FAQ.
Please learn about hydrostatic pressure and come back when you know something.

So...

How does siphoning work without gravity on the FE?

Go out and try siphoning yourself. Why does lifting the source tank higher above the destination takemake the rate of water flow increase massively?

I'll get numbers to show you non-believers later but the principle is sound.

So do you think syphoning wont work in a rocket pulling one gee in space?

No gravity there but I think you'll find you could still syphon liquids in that situation.

You said it yourself robosteve.
Gravitational potential!

Yes, I said "gravitational potential". Very observant.

But you are wrong about not having anything to do with distance from the earth, hydrostatic pressure on a liquid is directly proportional to its height above the earth. Hydrostatic pressure cannot be explained in the FEM. And no its not in the FAQ.
Please learn about hydrostatic pressure and come back when you know something.

No, it is unrelated to the height above the Earth. Fluid pressure is related to the difference in gravitational potential between the part of the fluid we are concerned with and its surface - or, to put it another way, the depth of the fluid and the local gravitational field. If it were directly proportional to its height above the Earth, then fluids underground would have negative pressure, which makes no sense.

You said it yourself robosteve.
Gravitational potential!

But you are wrong about not having anything to do with distance from the earth, hydrostatic pressure on a liquid is directly proportional to its height above the earth. Hydrostatic pressure cannot be explained in the FEM. And no its not in the FAQ.
Please learn about hydrostatic pressure and come back when you know something.

Gravitational potential doesn't prove "gravity". You can obtain zero gravity in an airplane, but that doesn't mean that there's no gravitational force either. Gravitation != Gravity.

Please, what is the mechanism that causes gravity in RE theory?

Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 02:26:59 PM

You said it yourself robosteve.
Gravitational potential!

But you are wrong about not having anything to do with distance from the earth, hydrostatic pressure on a liquid is directly proportional to its height above the earth. Hydrostatic pressure cannot be explained in the FEM. And no its not in the FAQ.
Please learn about hydrostatic pressure and come back when you know something.

Gravitational potential doesn't prove "gravity". You can obtain zero gravity in an airplane, but that doesn't mean that there's no gravitational force either. Gravitation != Gravity.

Please, what is the mechanism that causes gravity in RE theory?

When a mass is present in the above space-time it distorts it so that whilst it remains true that traveling through space causes you to travel through time, traveling through time now causes you to move (accelerate) through space.  In other words just by existing, you are compelled to move through space - this is gravity.

That copypasta does not explain the mechanism behind gravity. Try again.

Gravity cannot be explained in a simple sense as scientists only know it is there and not what actually causes it. Its a bit like your floating plate in that sense only it can be observed, measured, and calculated.
Gravity is taken into account when aerospace engineers design a plane, do you fly on a plane even knowing that it has been designed using, in your view, a flawed view of the earth?
Infact even your PC uses silicon which processes have been designed taking into account gravitational force, you probably shouldnt use a PC just incase.

Unfortunatly the FEM has no maths behind it and its principles are just a lot of nonsence and hear say from unscientific people who live in the dark ages.
If you look through the history of the FEM each time a major scientific breakthrough disproves the myth the myth gets changed to account for it.

That copypasta does not explain the mechanism behind gravity. Try again.

Why don't you have a go on it Mr. Smartypants!

Since when did I claim that I have knowledge regarding the mechanism of gravity? You started it, so expect to be refuted.

Quantum gravity may provide an answer in the future.

Since when did I claim that I have knowledge regarding the mechanism of gravity? You started it, so expect to be refuted.

Quantum gravity may provide an answer in the future.

Yes, let's just hope that they'll find the graviton!
If they discover the Higgs boson, that would be cool as well.

If they discover the Higgs boson, that would be cool as well.

Shouldnt be long now, they just have to rebuild it after one of the scientists spilt beer over the superconductors during the opening ceremony

in the above space-time

What above space-time?

Quote from: svenanders on July 01, 2009, 12:14:43 AM

in the above space-time

What above space-time?

He was referring to the above post you noob!

Since when did I claim that I have knowledge regarding the mechanism of gravity? You started it, so expect to be refuted.

I don't get it. Why must be expected to be refuted. You FE people also don't have anything on the mechanism which is behind of UA or constant acceleration of the earth. I guess then that other people can demand also the explanation for the mechanism of acceleration every time when someone mentions it. RE people have gravity, FE people have acceleration and both of them can't explain the mechanism behind it. So it would be fair if you don't ask for explanation of the mechanism of gravity when you can't explain the mechanism of acceleration.

Quote from: svenanders on July 01, 2009, 03:20:31 PM

If they discover the Higgs boson, that would be cool as well.

Shouldnt be long now, they just have to rebuild it after one of the scientists spilt beer over the superconductors during the opening ceremony

They have to rebuild the Higgs boson?