[Not a Joke!] Earth is "not so flat" according to FET. Reasons and consequences.

  • 26 Replies
  • 14158 Views
?

Sergio Leone

As this is my first post let me start by saying hi to everyone here. I have been following as a reader this forum for quite some time and I find it really interesting, a really good place where people can discuss in a civil manner upon the true shape of Earth.

I would like to discuss about some (possible) implications of General Relativity (GR) in the FET.

According to the FAQ gravitation in the FET is due to the constant acceleration of the Earth and the equivalence principle in GR. This means that the geometry of the space in which Earth is is not Euclidean (even if it is still flat in the sense that the curvature is zero), in particular this means that light should bend downwards. This is not a noticeable effect, but this also means that we won't really see Earth as flat even if we are standing on an high enough tower. Maybe we could see something like a curved horizon if the Earth is large enough... (but this effect could not be confused with the curvature in RET: this one should be even much less noticeable).

So what I am saying is that Earth is not flat at least according to the intuitive idea of flatness even in FETs.

My proposal is then to give up some of the "flatness" of the Earth in FETs in order to be able to fix some difficulties in the theory. One for all the shape of the land masses. It's against the experience of most people that Australia has a size comparable with the size of Asia like here:



and this is just an example: it seems to be really difficult to make an accurate (on both the "hemispheres"!)  map in the FET framework.

If Earth is flat then probably it's sitting upon a really massive object (a think layer of rocks or something more exotic) than according to GR this masses are bending the structure of spacetime actually changing the underlying geometry, changing the relative distance of places and so on. This could also explain ship sinking and other RE-like optical phenomena in terms of gravitational effects on the light.

Here there are many possibilities... one that I am thinking on is the RFET the "Round Flat Earth Theory" or NCFET "No Conspiracy Flat Earth Theory", it is a FET theory in which the true shape of Earth is a *flat* sheet like this:



orbiting around an hypermassive object (a black hole?) leading to massive gravitational optic effects and distance distortions. Up to the point that people flying at really high altitudes (even up to the moon?) could be lead to think that Earth is a ball, so that no conspiracy is required for the Theory... (Conspiracy being perhaps the most difficult thing to believe for me in any FET).

Edges in the Earth map could be connected thanks to the multi-link topology of spacetime.

I still have to figure out many things in this RFET, but I do really think that it is possible to mathematically construct a FET model + spacetime curvature explaining any of the "RE" effects...

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Light bends upward. There is no gravitation, just equivilance principle.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39571
There is no gravitation, just equivilance principle.

Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Sergio Leone

Light bends upward. There is no gravitation, just equivilance principle.
According to the equivalence principle light should bend downwards:

http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/spotlights/equivalence_deflection/index.html

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?

Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?

Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

There is some kind of thing that produce gravitation. Call it in any way you like it.

Quote
There is no gravitation, just equivilance principle.

The equivalence principle is an equivalence between gravitation and acceleration you idiot.

Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?

Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

Because that's the definition of gravity. You know "bodies" attracting one another.

Christ this place really is kindergarden science isn't it?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

Because that's the definition of gravity. You know "bodies" attracting one another.

So when an electron attracts a proton, this is due to gravity?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39571
Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?

Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

Why must you answer a question with a question?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Tom is right. Gravity is not specifically required. The definition on gravity is a force that causes gravitation between two separate masses. It's vague and can be attributed to anything.

Wrong. There's nothing vague about gravity and it can't be "attributed to anything".

Gravity and gravitation are generally used interchangeably, even by astrophysicists. However if you want to be pedantic (and boy, do you ever) then gravitation describes the general effect of attraction between mass, gravity is that attraction specific to the earth.

So you're saying that gravity has a physical manifestation where we can without a doubt prove it is gravity? And this manifestation is caused ONLY by gravity, and can't be caused by ANYTHING else? I've never heard of such a thing! But please, I'm not a troll, prove me wrong. You don't even have to link me to a source (although I will look it up)

Ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica

And your statement after that is with a round earth model. If the earth is round, gravity exists and you are correct. If the earth is not round, gravity does not exist. It doesn't seem that hard to understand to me.

Sorry but gravity is an observed phenomenon regardless of the shape of the earth. You can't wish gravity away. Sorry to bust up your party.

That book is a way to measure and detect a manifestation specifically caused by NOTHING but gravity?

Pretty much.

I can't argue the second part of the post because you obviously have not read the gravity thread and therefore do not understand the point I am trying to make. I don't even understand how it's an 'observed phenomenon'. Please explain.
[/quote]

I read the gravity thread. I laughed at all the fail. Then I cried at all the fail. Oh the humanity. Life is like that.

Gravity is an observed phenomenon because we observe it.

You can invent more magical hidden causes if you like, but then you'd be breaking Newtons first rule of reasoning. Let me know how that works out.

Magical hidden causes?!?!

Acceleration is a magical secret?!?!


I guess I lose then. You win this argument. I can't compete with circular reasoning.

There's no circular reasoning. But you do get a candy for trying to pin the accusation onto me.

Bye!

It's only observable if you can observe and be observed, while observing.  The observed obversation depends on the observable observations that can be fully observed and re-observed.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39571
Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?

Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

Because none of the other fundamental forces could work.  Strong and weak forces only work at the sub-atomic scale.  EM has polarity and if a positively charged sun were to be orbited by negatively charged planets, moons and asteroids then the like charged bodiess would repel each other and the effect would be noticeable in the orbits of those bodies.  Only gravity/gravitation is always mutually attractive at great distances.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?

Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

Because none of the other fundamental forces could work.  Strong and weak forces only work at the sub-atomic scale.  EM has polarity and if a positively charged sun were to be orbited by negatively charged planets, moons and asteroids then the like charged bodiess would repel each other and the effect would be noticeable in the orbits of those bodies.  Only gravity/gravitation is always mutually attractive at great distances.
Asteroids would have nowhere near the magnitude of charge possessed by the Sun or a "planet". This is a highly suspect claim, I doubt that such weak foces would have a major impact on asteroid trajectories.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 10:39:09 AM by Johannes Kepler »

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Sorry but gravity is an observed phenomenon regardless of the shape of the earth. You can't wish gravity away. Sorry to bust up your party.
Read this or stop posting

http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Equivalence+Principle

You clearly know nothing, so it's time to read up.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Light bends upward. There is no gravitation, just equivilance principle.
According to the equivalence principle light should bend downwards:

http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/spotlights/equivalence_deflection/index.html

Thank you for your interest in Flat Earth physics.

Bendy Light is in its infancy here but it has been described somewhat already.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Electromagnetic+Accelerator
http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Optics

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Why, is gravity required for bodies to attract or rotate around one another?

Because that's the definition of gravity. You know "bodies" attracting one another.

So when an electron attracts a proton, this is due to gravity?

No. You must be the retard here.

I'm just applying your definition of gravity. If there's something retarded about what I said, it must come from your definition.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

You clearly know nothing, so it's time to read up.

Hint: The equivalence principle equates gravity and acceleration. Therefore gravity must be valid for the equivalence principle to be valid.

Now go away.

I'm just applying your definition of gravity. If there's something retarded about what I said, it must come from your definition.

No it wasn't my definition of gravity.


(Edited for inflammatory language.)
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 12:38:18 PM by Jack »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
No it wasn't my definition of gravity.

So, what did you mean by this:

Because that's the definition of gravity. You know "bodies" attracting one another.

If not that the definition of gravity is bodies attracting one another?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

So, what did you mean by this:

Because that's the definition of gravity. You know "bodies" attracting one another.

If not that the definition of gravity is bodies attracting one another?

Yes. That's a loose but reasonable definition of gravity. Reading and comprehension aren't your forte are they?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Yes. That's a loose but reasonable definition of gravity. Reading and comprehension aren't your forte are they?

Then, if the definition of gravity is bodies attracting each other, I can logically conclude that a proton and electron attracting each other must be doing so due to gravity. Feel free to point out any logical errors I may have made.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Then, if the definition of gravity is bodies attracting each other, I can logically conclude that a proton and electron attracting each other must be doing so due to gravity. Feel free to point out any logical errors I may have made.

You see what you've done is confuse "body" with "proton" and "electron".

I see you're the kind of retard that comes back for more.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
You see what you've done is confuse "body" with "proton" and "electron".

What is your definition of a "body"?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Sergio Leone

Bendy Light is in its infancy here but it has been described somewhat already.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Electromagnetic+Accelerator
http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Optics
I see what you mean now. What I am saying is that you can explain the "sinking ship" optical effect even with light bending downwards the advantage is that you don't need "dark energy" to explain this, but the explanation only lies in the structure of the Earth below the surface.

Moreover in GR light follows geodesics lines in spacetime and dark energy, in mainstream physics, is a gravitational effect. It is indeed possible to have dark energy bending the light in that way upwards, but that would also result in a strong gravitational and we would fill a strong gravitational force pulling us towards the sky...

Truth is you can't bend the light in a direction which is opposite to the direction of the apparent gravitational force. At least in GR.

*

W

  • 2293
Re: [Not a Joke!] Earth is "not so flat" according to FET. Reasons and consequen
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2009, 07:37:21 PM »
There is no gravitation, just equivilance principle.

Then why do the planets orbit around the sun?

They don't... the sun goes around the earth in a circle.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.