proof that..

a) velocity isn't real (or the earth is round)
b) that the earth rotates (cause i can't seem to find if the earth rotates or not in your faq)

a) in south argentina or in north greenland, an object with a weight (not mass) of 1N, will weight different (less) then on the equator (or let's take congo, cause that seems to be the centre of the flat earth)

result, either velocity isn't everywhere the same (which will result in curvature) OR it proofs gravity

that to be the first

b)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum <-first proof
second proof: if you drop an object from a very tall building (let's say empire state building), you'll notice that if you drop it at the eastside, the object falls towards the building and then when you drop it at the westside, it'll fall away from the building

yeyeye, you can say 'wind', but if you do it 100 times a day for 50 days, you'll notice that it's true

If you drop something from the top of the empire state building it won't make it to the ground.

a) in south argentina or in north greenland, an object with a weight (not mass) of 1N, will weight different (less) then on the equator (or let's take congo, cause that seems to be the centre of the flat earth)

Oh really? What would it weigh? Do you actually have any evidence that the weight is different, or are you just assuming that the weight will be different because that's what your physics teacher told you?

second proof: if you drop an object from a very tall building (let's say empire state building), you'll notice that if you drop it at the eastside, the object falls towards the building and then when you drop it at the westside, it'll fall away from the building

Again, do you have any proof of this? Because I'm pretty sure that you'll never be able to measure this effect.

I think it would be impossible to rule out the effects of winds over such a large distance, certainly it would introduce a large error even on a calm day.

I think it would be impossible to rule out the effects of winds over such a large distance, certainly it would introduce a large error even on a calm day.

Go to the doldrums.

Quote from: Dreak on December 30, 2009, 07:25:19 AM

a) in south argentina or in north greenland, an object with a weight (not mass) of 1N, will weight different (less) then on the equator (or let's take congo, cause that seems to be the centre of the flat earth)

Oh really? What would it weigh? Do you actually have any evidence that the weight is different, or are you just assuming that the weight will be different because that's what your physics teacher told you?

that's what i know from thinking logically, knowing that there is gravity


do you have any evidence that the world is accelerating upwards?

Quote

second proof: if you drop an object from a very tall building (let's say empire state building), you'll notice that if you drop it at the eastside, the object falls towards the building and then when you drop it at the westside, it'll fall away from the building

Again, do you have any proof of this? Because I'm pretty sure that you'll never be able to measure this effect.

it's easy to test it.

by the way, the earth rotates 0° 0' 15" every second
let's take a building of 400m
t = sqrt(2*400/9.81)
t = 9seconds

which results in a rotation of 0°2'15"
that really should be possible to measure

Quote from: skeptical scientist on December 30, 2009, 09:00:33 AM

Quote from: Dreak on December 30, 2009, 07:25:19 AM

a) in south argentina or in north greenland, an object with a weight (not mass) of 1N, will weight different (less) then on the equator (or let's take congo, cause that seems to be the centre of the flat earth)

Oh really? What would it weigh? Do you actually have any evidence that the weight is different, or are you just assuming that the weight will be different because that's what your physics teacher told you?

that's what i know from thinking logically, knowing that there is gravity


do you have any evidence that the world is accelerating upwards?

Quote

Quote

second proof: if you drop an object from a very tall building (let's say empire state building), you'll notice that if you drop it at the eastside, the object falls towards the building and then when you drop it at the westside, it'll fall away from the building

Again, do you have any proof of this? Because I'm pretty sure that you'll never be able to measure this effect.

it's easy to test it.

by the way, the earth rotates 0° 0' 15" every second
let's take a building of 400m
t = sqrt(2*400/9.81)
t = 9seconds

which results in a rotation of 0°2'15"
that really should be possible to measure

If a human being jumps into the air with X amount of force, that force is countered by the force of gravity which causes an acceleration of 9.81/(M)s^2
toward the ground, making a person hit at a given speed. However, since the distance of an object from the surface, over a given amount of time, can effect
the velocity of the object, as acceleration is the change in velocity over time, it is either the object that is accelerating, or the plane,
toward which the object is falling. Let us propose, however, that 2 objects are falling. One object is falling at the acceleration of gravity, and one is
countering the force of gravity with thrust in the opposite direction. The objects velocity towards the ground ever increases as shown by a logarithmic
progression of change in position due to gravity and terminal velocity. However, the object that counters the acceleration of the force of gravity stays parallel to the surface. If this is true,
then either the amount of energy the object is using to oppose the force is increasing at the same rate as the change of position of the falling object,
with respect to the ground, or the ground itself is stationary, and the objects move toward a constant force.

Now we just use occams razor, and the answer jumps out at us, doesn't it?     

Wow....so many people so confused about high school physics.

that's what i know from thinking logically, knowing that there is gravity

In other words, you are using your "knowledge" of gravity to derive some prediction that you have never confirmed. That's all it is: a prediction. You claimed it was proof of gravity, but that's not how science works. Until you actually confirm the prediction, it's not evidence of anything.

Quote

Quote

second proof: if you drop an object from a very tall building (let's say empire state building), you'll notice that if you drop it at the eastside, the object falls towards the building and then when you drop it at the westside, it'll fall away from the building

Again, do you have any proof of this? Because I'm pretty sure that you'll never be able to measure this effect.

it's easy to test it.

by the way, the earth rotates 0° 0' 15" every second
let's take a building of 400m
t = sqrt(2*400/9.81)
t = 9seconds

which results in a rotation of 0°2'15"
that really should be possible to measure

What should be possible to measure? Surely you aren't claiming that the dropped object would land 0°2'15" of arc away from the base of the building?

If this is true,
then either the amount of energy the object is using to oppose the force is increasing at the same rate as the change of position of the falling object, with respect to the ground, or the ground itself is stationary, and the objects move toward a constant force.

Whatever gave you that idea? Assume we're in the universally accelerating FE model. First, the hovering object may not be using any energy to remain hovering - an example of this would be a magnet held in space by magnetic forces from other magnets. But even if it is - say a helicopter using chemical energy stored in gasoline to keep its rotors spinning - then the rate of energy usage just needs to be enough to keep its rotors spinning at a constant rate and overcoming the force of drag, and it will accelerate upwards at the same rate as the Earth. However, since the amount of energy needed to overcome the force of drag is constant, the energy use of the helicopter will also be constant.

I have to agree with skeptical scientist (because I am one myself), and EireEngineer: the physics concepts people are using in this thread are not correct.

If you want to prove earth's rotation, one word: Gyroscope
If you want to prove earth's grativy, two words: Torsion Balance (or Torsion Pendulum)

Its nice that you are thinking of science concepts to use in debate, however, please use them correctly.  I remember from physics class (a long time ago), that we calculated the difference in weight at the north pole versus the equator, and its less than 0.3 N for a 100N object (0.3%).  Hard to test, even with accurate equipment, but I'd still like to see this experiment carried out.

Quote from: Theguy121 on December 31, 2009, 03:50:06 AM

If this is true,
then either the amount of energy the object is using to oppose the force is increasing at the same rate as the change of position of the falling object, with respect to the ground, or the ground itself is stationary, and the objects move toward a constant force.

Whatever gave you that idea? Assume we're in the universally accelerating FE model. First, the hovering object may not be using any energy to remain hovering - an example of this would be a magnet held in space by magnetic forces from other magnets. But even if it is - say a helicopter using chemical energy stored in gasoline to keep its rotors spinning - then the rate of energy usage just needs to be enough to keep its rotors spinning at a constant rate and overcoming the force of drag, and it will accelerate upwards at the same rate as the Earth. However, since the amount of energy needed to overcome the force of drag is constant, the energy use of the helicopter will also be constant.

If this is true, then at the very least, as the earth is moving upward at a certain acceleration, the helicopters altitude, with respect to the accelerating Earth wouldn't correct itself immediately, and you might see a sort of constant decent and elevation back to its original height due to the time necessary for the medium of drag (Air) to buoy the object higher, as it already has the necessary energy output to counter drag. It takes time for the energy transfer, and this would be very important to science, especially in the FE model. 

No no no. If the helicopter is accelerating upward at a constant 9.8 m/s², and the Earth is accelerating upward at a constant 9.8 m/s², and the helicopter starts out hovering (has the same initial velocity as the Earth), the helicopter's altitude, measured with respect to the Earth's surface, will be constant.

The helicopter's blades are constantly spinning, so the helicopter is constantly generating lift, and there is no time taken to transfer energy to the helicopter. Where are you getting these strange ideas from?

No no no. If the helicopter is accelerating upward at a constant 9.8 m/s², and the Earth is accelerating upward at a constant 9.8 m/s², and the helicopter starts out hovering (has the same initial velocity as the Earth), the helicopter's altitude, measured with respect to the Earth's surface, will be constant.

The helicopter's blades are constantly spinning, so the helicopter is constantly generating lift, and there is no time taken to transfer energy to the helicopter. Where are you getting these strange ideas from?

I have experimented with this already with a toy helicopter and a large plate. It takes a slight amount of time from the movement of plate to the movement of the helicopter upward.

Do you think there was an error in my experiment?

Do you think there was an error in my experiment?

Yes I do. The difference is that in the FE model, the atmosphere is being pushed along with the FE, so all the air is constantly accelerating upwards at the same rate as the FE. I highly doubt that this was replicated in your experiment.

Quote from: Theguy121 on January 01, 2010, 05:52:47 PM

Do you think there was an error in my experiment?

Yes I do. The difference is that in the FE model, the atmosphere is being pushed along with the FE, so all the air is constantly accelerating upwards at the same rate as the FE. I highly doubt that this was replicated in your experiment.

So the air that wasn't being pushed up was hindering the instantaneous change in position, with respect to the change in position of the base? I think I get what you're talking about now. So is there no net energy gain in atmosphere as a result of the upward accelerating FE? 

So is there no net energy gain in atmosphere as a result of the upward accelerating FE?

Oh, there is, and the Earth itself is constantly gaining kinetic energy. I think the source of this energy is said to be "Dark Energy" - I'm not sure if it's ever been explained what this means.

Quote from: Theguy121 on January 01, 2010, 06:26:31 PM

So is there no net energy gain in atmosphere as a result of the upward accelerating FE?

Oh, there is, and the Earth itself is constantly gaining kinetic energy. I think the source of this energy is said to be "Dark Energy" - I'm not sure if it's ever been explained what this means.

I would sure like to see some things come out of this that are empirically sound, and that exclude the possibility of RE. Else, I think I will have a hard time taking anything in this as anything more than speculation based on axioms attained through literal interpretations of religious texts.

I would sure like to see some things come out of this that are empirically sound, and that exclude the possibility of RE.

Am I hallucinating here? Because it sounds like your confidence that the Earth is round is wavering...

No, I think he's saying that he would like to see some actual evidence for a FE that bluntly contradicts RE, instead of just explanations for phenomena already described in RET.  We would all like to see this, but there aren't any.

On the note of the topic at hand, the UA theory is based on the fact that if you were in an elevator in space accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s, you would not be able to tell if you were actually stationary in a box on earth.  It might explain some things, but is contradicted by others, and has more or less been debunked by the forum.