Flat Earth moves upwards?

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 05:51:57 PM

He essentially seems to be arguing that small scale experiments can't disprove the equivalence principle, which is an entirely separate issue from being able to perform experiments  at all to determine if the earth is being accelerated by gravity or something else. So it can be done, but he is sticking to an irrelevant argument as a means of defense.

I never said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between gravity and acceleration at all. I said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between the two in our frame of reference, because tidal effects (variations) are too small to be noticeable in such frame of reference.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 05:42:38 PM

We're getting to the heart of the matter now!

Tell me more about this "something".

Unknown, but it would probably have properties which counteract with positive gravitational fields. Or, we can simply say the Earth is unique in that it does not distort the geometry of space-time.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 10, 2010, 05:48:00 PM

actually there is. high speed camera. it is moving upwards if acceleration is constant.
it is gravity if acceleration increases based on the inverse square law

What?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 10, 2010, 06:08:07 PM

Ok so sorry if someone brought this up but, you have a piece of paper and a steel ball at the same height. the steel ball hits first.
explain how this could happen if your FE accelerates evenly. and don't give me some nonsense about air compression without any maths to prove it. Also terminal speed.

The force of drag causes the paper to accelerate up faster than the steel ball relative to the Earth's acceleration.

For the "What?"

FET predicts constant acceleration
RET does not, because the closer something is to the earth, the more it accelerates according to Newtons inverse square law.


Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.



Wait so now the paper is accelerating too?
lol no. lrn to physics. drag is based on velocity.if the paper is not moving,
no drag force. r u saying the air pushes upon the paper?
via the UA accelerating it or the earth pushing it?
or something else

Quote from: General Disarray on May 10, 2010, 05:28:47 PM

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:18:37 PM

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.

Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.

In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.

If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.

If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.

SIR, if point A is accelerating faster than B, in some direction X, then X_final-x_initial=.5dt² where d is the difference in constant acceleration. factor in a couple of thousand years and BAM. Everest times 5billion

Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.

I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before.  At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence.  This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.

FET predicts constant acceleration
RET does not, because the closer something is to the earth, the more it accelerates according to Newtons inverse square law.

Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.

I have said it before and I will say it again: there are no experiments which can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where tidal effects are too small to be considered. The bold part is important. Your example is done on a macroscopic scale, where tidal effects are considered. The Equivalence Principle does not apply to such scale.

It's strange that you argue for pages that something exists (the nature and operation of mass in a spacetime universe) and then wish it all away in an instant. Someones time is being wasted. Who do I bill?

Special case pleading without reason.

There are so far only two possible explanations as to why Earth is a disc: the Earth's mass is unique in that it is not gravitational mass (it does not gravitate nor respond to gravitation), or it is not unique and the Earth's gravitational field is canceled out by something else.

Wait so now the paper is accelerating too?
lol no. lrn to physics. drag is based on velocity.if the paper is not moving,
no drag force. r u saying the air pushes upon the paper?
via the UA accelerating it or the earth pushing it?
or something else

The Earth pushes the air, and the air in turn pushes the paper.

I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before.  At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence.  This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.

The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.

The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.

Honestly, no matter how many times I see that, it never fails to rouse a hearty laugh.

Quote from: Jack on May 11, 2010, 10:28:14 PM

The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.

Honestly, no matter how many times I see that, it never fails to rouse a hearty laugh.

If that were true, it'd be time to break out the SPF 5,000,000.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 11, 2010, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 11, 2010, 07:03:16 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 11, 2010, 06:59:04 PM

Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA.  For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it.  Is UA fickle and selective?

When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.

But *why* does it stop accelerating?  I can't think of a logical explanation for this.  If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?

Because the earth is the only thing going up.its just that you are connected to the container and milk.Thus when the milk lets go,it is no longer affected by the acceleration(as it technically isn't covered under UA to begin with.)

For God's sake, tell me *WHY* the milk isn't covered under UA to begin with!  Give me a logical explanation why UA only seems to affect EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE except my milk.

So we're back around to this argument:

"Something is negating the mass contained in the planet Earth because it must in order for my model to work"

This claim has exactly no evidence on its side, yet you continue to proclaim it as if you are absolutely sure that it is 100% true. That seems much more like religious faith than scientific fact.

Answer pl0x.

And you are the only one still talking about the equivalence principle, it honestly has no relevance to the argument anymore.

There are so far only two possible explanations as to why Earth is a disc: the Earth's mass is unique in that it is not gravitational mass (it does not gravitate nor respond to gravitation), or it is not unique and the Earth's gravitational field is canceled out by something else.

There are also only two possible explanations why the royal family is a race of intergalactic lizard people; they came here for our precious gold, or they were born here thousands of years ago and stayed hidden until they could seize power.

Beg the question less.

And neither of your proposals stand up. See previous post.

Or perhaps there it a giant invisible wizard in the sky who cast a spell long ago to ensure that the Earth never produced a gravitational field.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 11, 2010, 11:39:37 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 11, 2010, 10:28:14 PM

The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.

Honestly, no matter how many times I see that, it never fails to rouse a hearty laugh.

If that were true, it'd be time to break out the SPF 5,000,000.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 11, 2010, 07:15:33 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 11, 2010, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 11, 2010, 07:03:16 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 11, 2010, 06:59:04 PM

Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA.  For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it.  Is UA fickle and selective?

When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.

But *why* does it stop accelerating?  I can't think of a logical explanation for this.  If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?

Because the earth is the only thing going up.its just that you are connected to the container and milk.Thus when the milk lets go,it is no longer affected by the acceleration(as it technically isn't covered under UA to begin with.)

For God's sake, tell me *WHY* the milk isn't covered under UA to begin with!  Give me a logical explanation why UA only seems to affect EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE except my milk.

The UA isn't some magic force, it is just a giant thing, pushing the Earth up. Asking why the UA "affects" the Earth and not the milk is like asking why my table affects my computer but not a bird flying overhead.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 11, 2010, 07:34:27 PM

Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.

I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before.  At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence.  This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.

Wait, I'm confused, why do cellestial bodies only pull on things not named Earth? and if these cellestial bodies are in the same accelerated reference frame as objects on earth, then wouldn't said objects be pulled into space if this was the only tug on them?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 11, 2010, 07:34:27 PM

FET predicts constant acceleration
RET does not, because the closer something is to the earth, the more it accelerates according to Newtons inverse square law.

Therefore, you should build an insanely high speed camera, and watch something fall thousands of meters in a vacuum.
or, you should put a really good odometer on it.

I have said it before and I will say it again: there are no experiments which can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where tidal effects are too small to be considered. The bold part is important. Your example is done on a macroscopic scale, where tidal effects are considered. The Equivalence Principle does not apply to such scale.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 11, 2010, 05:16:08 AM

It's strange that you argue for pages that something exists (the nature and operation of mass in a spacetime universe) and then wish it all away in an instant. Someones time is being wasted. Who do I bill?

Special case pleading without reason.

There are so far only two possible explanations as to why Earth is a disc: the Earth's mass is unique in that it is not gravitational mass (it does not gravitate nor respond to gravitation), or it is not unique and the Earth's gravitational field is canceled out by something else.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 11, 2010, 07:34:27 PM

Wait so now the paper is accelerating too?
lol no. lrn to physics. drag is based on velocity.if the paper is not moving,
no drag force. r u saying the air pushes upon the paper?
via the UA accelerating it or the earth pushing it?
or something else

The Earth pushes the air, and the air in turn pushes the paper.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 11, 2010, 09:28:21 PM

I can give their answer for why gravity weakens with altitude, as I've heard it before.  At those heights, they claim, the gravity of the celestial bodies above (mainly sun and moon) causes more and more of an influence.  This doesn't do a damn thing in explaining why the force is still weakened by (roughly) the same amount when neither the sun nor the moon are in the sky, and the stars can't be having that big of an influence considering they're many light-years away.

The stars are only 3100 miles above the Earth.

OK Im not arguing the Equivalency thing, tho nice strawman, I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.

and for your Drag thingie.

NO. say the paper is ten miles in the air. are you saying that the earth impacts the velocity of particles ten miles high instantaneously? drag force is instant, (or nearly) because the air is next to the paper. the earth pushing on air thing, even if it worked that way (which it doesn't) would travel at light speed, hence there would be a delay. more importantly, why would the air be moving upwards? take a big sheet of paper and move it, you'll notice the moving air is in proximity to the paper, not ten miles away from it. you have lost your UA give up now

The UA isn't some magic force, it is just a giant thing, pushing the Earth up. Asking why the UA "affects" the Earth and not the milk is like asking why my table affects my computer but not a bird flying overhead.
[/quote]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.  "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force".  And that second statement made absolutely no sense.  Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct? 

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.  "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force".  And that second statement made absolutely no sense.  Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct? 

Wrong, it affects anything which is touching it (like a table).

I have said it before and I will say it again: there are no experiments which can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where tidal effects are too small to be considered. The bold part is important. Your example is done on a macroscopic scale, where tidal effects are considered. The Equivalence Principle does not apply to such scale.

Then how big do you consider your frame of reference to be?

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 12, 2010, 12:19:16 PM

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.  "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force".  And that second statement made absolutely no sense.  Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct? 

Wrong, it affects anything which is touching it (like a table).

No one seems to want to tell me WHY.  WHY does it only affect things 'touching it'?  Your practically implies that, when something touches the Earth, magic flows into that object, and suddenly it's affected by UA. 

Quote from: James on May 12, 2010, 12:37:08 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 12, 2010, 12:19:16 PM

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.  "a giant thing" is much more scientific than "some magic force".  And that second statement made absolutely no sense.  Just answer this: UA, Universal Acceleration, affects everything in the universe, hence the name, correct? 

Wrong, it affects anything which is touching it (like a table).

No one seems to want to tell me WHY.  WHY does it only affect things 'touching it'?  Your practically implies that, when something touches the Earth, magic flows into that object, and suddenly it's affected by UA. 

Do you not understand how objects work? Why does a book only interact with me when I touch it? Why does a wall only interact with me when I touch it? Do you see how stupid your question is?

I'll give the milk example a try.

You are standing on the ground and are being accelerated by contact with the ground. Your weight is the result of this acceleration.

The milk in your hand is being accelerated by your hand/arm. The pull (weight) on your arm is you accelerating the milk.

When you pour the milk you are no longer accelerating that milk. The earth, you and the carton with less milk continue to accelerate.

After Time=0 the earth, you, and the carton are traveling faster then the expelled milk. The result is the milk from your frame of reference traveling downward.

I'm a REer and wish I could think of a simple way to prove we are being accelerated downward.

According to James, UA only affects the Earth directly.  Why is it, then, that we never run into any stars?  If it's not affecting them, and the Earth is accelerating indefinitely through space, why don't we ever run into any stationary crap?

According to James, UA only affects the Earth directly.  Why is it, then, that we never run into any stars?  If it's not affecting them, and the Earth is accelerating indefinitely through space, why don't we ever run into any stationary crap?

It only affects the Earth?  What makes us so damn special?

And why the hell can nobody tell me WHY?  I've asked at least 4 times.  So here, again, is my question:

WHY does "UA" ONLY affect the Earth?

And midwestsailor, I understand what you just said.  What I want to know is why only the Earth we're standing on is affected by UA, not the milk.

His response is electro something. Other say that at some undetermined altitude the earth stops blocking the UA.

He says it only affects the Earth because it's "a big thing" pushing the Earth from below.
...but if UA only affected the Earth, we'd run into those 3100-mile-high stars in about seventeen minutes.  

He says it only affects the Earth because it's "a big thing" pushing the Earth from below.
...but if UA only affected the Earth, we'd run into those 3100-mile-high stars in about seventeen minutes.  

I don't know why I bother tryingn to argue against concrete evidence like that.  <--- fail

So, his explanation is a 'big thing', which is conveniently *under* the Earth so he can't prove it exists (nor can we prove it doesn't).  Interesting.

I just get so confused sometimes when terms like 'big thing' get thrown around.  So scientific. 

It's James.

Another win for FET?

The UA isn't some magic force, it is just a giant thing, pushing the Earth up.

Uh huh.

It's a universal accelerator because it accelerates everything it touches. But it only touches one thing. Hmm.

In that case I have in my possession a universal accelerator that also accelerates all that it touches! Wondrous beast! It is called a Renault Twingo.

Their official explanation is that everything above us is being pushed by an impossibly huge electric field which no one has ever measured.

Their official explanation is that everything above us is being pushed by an impossibly huge electric field which no one has ever measured.

Actually that's just James' explanation. Each FE believer has his own version and there is little consensus.

How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that?

How can we ever win an argument when they come up with facts like that?

Exactly!

They refuse to come to a consensus, because as soon as they do, they would have a hard and fast theory which could be disproved. By keeping things nebulous, if one possibility is disproved, they can always just fall back on the excuse of "that's just one possibility", and make up some other just as unlikely BS.