Flat Earth moves upwards?

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

You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.

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.

My statement was nothing like that. For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.

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

Saying "no" does not prove anything.

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

As I have said many times before in this thread, when I said "our frame of reference", I refer to the one where tidal effects are neglected. In other words, it would be local. That is where Equivalence Principle applies.

I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.

No, I am afraid you cannot in your local reference frame.

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?

As long as the paper leaves the ground and is within the atmolayer, it will be influenced by drag.

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.

The Earth is not moving at relativistic speed in our frame of reference.

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.

Air is moving upwards because the Earth is pushing it up.

you have lost your UA give up now

Just because you have no idea what you are talking about does not mean the UA fails.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 12, 2010, 03:38:44 PM

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

You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.

I propose that there is a giant invisible wizard in the sky which holds up the stars, planets, and everything else we see up there. He also cancels the gravity of Earth and is responsible for all the other unexplained phenomena of FET.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 12, 2010, 03:47:35 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 12, 2010, 03:38:44 PM

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

You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.

I propose that there is a giant invisible wizard in the sky which holds up the stars, planets, and everything else we see up there. He also cancels the gravity of Earth and is responsible for all the other unexplained phenomena of FET.

The Sun and moon are actually in another part of the universe and there are two wormholes that project the energy from the objects.  Gravity lensing causes the light to appear as though it's from a round object instead of a flat wormhole.
The Earth does have gravity.  The core, however, is a flat, thick chunk of iron with charged lava flows all around it, essentially generating a circular magnetic field so the North pole is the center and the south pole is the edge.  This also provides the gravity we feel and keeps the Earth from crushing in on itself.

So why do the stars rotate?  Well, the whole sky as we see it is actually the aperture of a giant wormhole.  Yes, there are two wormholes inside another, bigger one.  The other end of the wormhole is in orbit of a planet in another part of the Galaxy.  This is why it appears that we're in a round Earth when we really aren't.


See?
I'm much better at this than the FEers.

Lorddave, I have a sick feeling that some FE'er, somewhere, has a whole new theory.  A few days from now you'll probably see that argument used against you

Quote from: General Disarray on May 12, 2010, 03:50:02 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 12, 2010, 03:47:35 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 12, 2010, 03:38:44 PM

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

You can't.
Though I could make up better sounding stuff than them.

I propose that there is a giant invisible wizard in the sky which holds up the stars, planets, and everything else we see up there. He also cancels the gravity of Earth and is responsible for all the other unexplained phenomena of FET.

The Sun and moon are actually in another part of the universe and there are two wormholes that project the energy from the objects.  Gravity lensing causes the light to appear as though it's from a round object instead of a flat wormhole.
The Earth does have gravity.  The core, however, is a flat, thick chunk of iron with charged lava flows all around it, essentially generating a circular magnetic field so the North pole is the center and the south pole is the edge.  This also provides the gravity we feel and keeps the Earth from crushing in on itself.

So why do the stars rotate?  Well, the whole sky as we see it is actually the aperture of a giant wormhole.  Yes, there are two wormholes inside another, bigger one.  The other end of the wormhole is in orbit of a planet in another part of the Galaxy.  This is why it appears that we're in a round Earth when we really aren't.


See?
I'm much better at this than the FEers.

Wow, I almost believe that.

For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.

I have a half-dollar that is in the shape of a disc.
It exerts a gravitational field.
You are wrong.

Quote from: Jack on May 12, 2010, 03:49:55 PM

For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.

I have a half-dollar that is in the shape of a disc.
It exerts a gravitational field.
You are wrong.

Heh.  It just went through my head how hard it would be to even prove your half-dollar was in the shape of a disc if you were a FE'er.  Picture this:

"Videos + photos of it don't count, they're doctored"
"I'm not gonna go out and get one, too expensive"
"Everything else that proves you right is part of the Half-Dollar Conspiracy!"

 

Quote from: Crustinator on May 12, 2010, 07:50:42 AM

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.

My statement was nothing like that. For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 12, 2010, 07:50:42 AM

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

Saying "no" does not prove anything.

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2010, 12:44:45 PM

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

As I have said many times before in this thread, when I said "our frame of reference", I refer to the one where tidal effects are neglected. In other words, it would be local. That is where Equivalence Principle applies.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.

No, I am afraid you cannot in your local reference frame.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

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?

As long as the paper leaves the ground and is within the atmolayer, it will be influenced by drag.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

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.

The Earth is not moving at relativistic speed in our frame of reference.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

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.

Air is moving upwards because the Earth is pushing it up.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

you have lost your UA give up now

Just because you have no idea what you are talking about does not mean the UA fails.

Kind gentlemen, Again, stop talking about reference frames:
1. take camera
2. shoot vid of object falling
3. prove or disprove gravity
4.
5. PROFIT


and sir I do know UA.
Earth pushes on air, but that doesn't mean air ten miles up magically gets to go at 9.8 meters/s/s,
firstly the effect disperses, when facepalmed 2min ago, I felt the gust of air as it neared my face, not when it was three feet away
secondly, if it could work this way, it wouldn't be instantaneous, it would be a chain reaction.
You have lost your UA give up already, change to the infinite plane theory, that's been more successful at being debunked.

I have a half-dollar that is in the shape of a disc.
It exerts a gravitational field.
You are wrong.

The Earth is not a half-dollar. The Earth is massive enough to collapse by its own gravitational field, whereas a half-dollar is not.

Kind gentlemen, Again, stop talking about reference frames:

Frame of reference is a very important concept in physics. For example, let us assume a car passes between you and an observer on the road, with you and the observer facing toward each other. If you see the car moving to your left, the observer will see will see it moving to his or her right. In other words, we have two difference reference frames.

1. take camera
2. shoot vid of object falling
3. prove or disprove gravity
4. ??
5. PROFIT

What point are you trying to make here?

and sir I do know UA.
Earth pushes on air, but that doesn't mean air ten miles up magically gets to go at 9.8 meters/s/s, firstly the effect disperses, when facepalmed 2min ago, I felt the gust of air as it neared my face, not when it was three feet away
secondly, if it could work this way, it wouldn't be instantaneous, it would be a chain reaction.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. As I said, any free object within the atmolayer is influenced by drag. The Earth always pushes the air up at 9.8m/s², so the air will pass the object at 9.8m/s². Drag from the passing air accelerates the object up to overcome its inertia. The object's acceleration increases. Once the acceleration of the object matches the acceleration of the Earth, the object reaches terminal velocity. You claim that you understand UA, so how can you not understand this?

You have lost your UA give up already

Repeating the same statement does not make you right.

The Earth is not a half-dollar. The Earth is massive enough to collapse by its own gravitational field, whereas a half-dollar is not.

The half-dollar experiences the effects of its own gravitational field and doesn't collapse under its own weight.  Your claim was that the disc-shaped Earth can't have "any" gravity--meaning none whatsoever, no matter how slight.  You've already admitted you were wrong, however roundabout your speaking may be.  At least have the decency to directly concede the mistake.

You guys can't even tell me why UA works on the Earth.  As far as I'm concerned, UA = debunked

And in that case, you guys can't even tell us why we don't fall off Earth.   You can't even give us a correct map.  Then you expect RE'ers to take your arguments seriously?  Because I'm pretty confident the RET explains everything just fine.

Lorddave, I have a sick feeling that some FE'er, somewhere, has a whole new theory.  A few days from now you'll probably see that argument used against you

if they do, I got original ownership.

The half-dollar experiences the effects of its own gravitational field and doesn't collapse under its own weight.

This is because the half-dollar does not have enough mass to exert a gravitational field which can overcome its material strength by heating up its interior through compression and softening it up. Despite the fact that they are disc-shaped, you simply cannot compare the Earth to a half-dollar in terms of their gravitational strength.

Your claim was that the disc-shaped Earth can't have "any" gravity--meaning none whatsoever, no matter how slight.  

What do you mean by "any gravity"? An object's gravitational strength depends on its mass (or energy-momentum in GR). The Earth disc is quite massive, so it can exert a gravitational field strong enough to deform its shape. This is essentially why I argued that either the Earth's mass cannot be gravitational or its gravitational field is canceled out. I never said any object of any mass will collapse by its own gravitation.

You've already admitted you were wrong, however roundabout your speaking may be.

When?

What do you mean by "any gravity"? An object's gravitational strength depends on its mass (or energy-momentum in GR). The Earth disc is quite massive, so it can exert a gravitational field strong enough to deform its shape. This is essentially why I argued that either the Earth's mass cannot be gravitational or its gravitational field is canceled out. I never said any object of any mass will collapse by its own gravitation.

I'm confused: you just said that the Earth is massive enough to have a gravitational field strong enough to deform its shape... into a sphere.  So are you saying that, if the Earth truly was a flat disc like FE'ers believe, it somehow cannot have a gravitational field, whether due to its mass, or due to some outside force cancelling it out?

To me, this is just more evidence of a round Earth.

For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.

But the earth is made of matter. All matter exerts a gravitational field, and the effects of gravitational fields are measurable. You rely on these statements in your own arguments. You've been told this already.

Saying "no" does not prove anything.

That's why I didn't just say "no", I gave you a detailed dismantling of your argument. Now you're resorting to begging the question.

Thanks for posting!

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 12, 2010, 03:14:01 AM

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.

UA is magic, if it can perform infinte amounts of work, with no known power source, explain how the total kenetic energy of the universe is forever increasing

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

then why does it effect Everest which is plenty high enough

The UA can generate infinite amounts of work, just like the conspiracy can generate infinite amounts of money 

Quote from: Crustinator on May 12, 2010, 07:50:42 AM

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.

My statement was nothing like that. For the Earth to be a disc, it must not exert any gravitational field.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 12, 2010, 07:50:42 AM

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

Saying "no" does not prove anything.

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2010, 12:44:45 PM

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

As I have said many times before in this thread, when I said "our frame of reference", I refer to the one where tidal effects are neglected. In other words, it would be local. That is where Equivalence Principle applies.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

I'm saying you can figure out if objects are being pulled by gravity or if the ground is just pushing upwards.

No, I am afraid you cannot in your local reference frame.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

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?

As long as the paper leaves the ground and is within the atmolayer, it will be influenced by drag.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

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.

The Earth is not moving at relativistic speed in our frame of reference.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

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.

Air is moving upwards because the Earth is pushing it up.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 09:35:23 AM

you have lost your UA give up now

Just because you have no idea what you are talking about does not mean the UA fails.

Kind gentleman, for the five billionth time,
1. take camera
2. film vid
3. see increase in acceleration
4. ?
5. PROFIT


and drag is about relative velocity again. the paper is stationary. therefore the air must be moving, what makes the air move? and don't say the earth, cause there' s noway that the gust would reach 5 miles high.
lrn2atomic clock: time on clocks on planes or skyscrapers have shown time delays which are larger then their margin of error. the gravitational time dilation phenomena exist, give up on UA, or forever be wrong
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

UA fails; take the loss like a man and move on.

What do you mean by "any gravity"?

What did YOU mean by "any gravity?"
You used that wording before I did.  See:

I never said any object of any mass will collapse by its own gravitation.

No one said that; what you did say was, for the Earth to be a disc, it "must not exert any gravitational field."  I can point you to numerous other disc-shaped objects that exert a gravitational field and don't collapse.  Earth COULD have a weak gravitational field and still be in the shape of a disc.

When?

...When you admitted that an object can be disc-shaped and still exert a gravitational field without collapsing.  It's a weak one, as we both agree, but it's still there.  Your "any" claim has fallen apart by your own hands.

Frame of reference is a very important concept in physics. For example, let us assume a car passes between you and an observer on the road, with you and the observer facing toward each other. If you see the car moving to your left, the observer will see will see it moving to his or her right. In other words, we have two difference reference frames.

I know what a frame of reference, but saying frame of reference doesn't invalidate my point.
My point is if you were to have the function h(t) of the objects height, then you could determine whether it had constant acceleration or if acceleration increased aka because of gravity from the earth.


And why would the air be always accelerating up wards? earth pushes air AT THE BOTTOM.
smack yourself in the face, and you will notice that you don't feel the gust of air untill your hand is near you. if If were to hold a disk, and somehow push it forward at 9.8m/s/s, then the air ten feet in front of it would not be traveling at that speed. Still haven't heard why time dilation is wrong. I keep saying give up on UA, because you're fighting a losing battle, accept the defeat and go with Parsifal's model, which is wayyy better than yours will ever be.

But the earth is made of matter. All matter exerts a gravitational field, and the effects of gravitational fields are measurable. You rely on these statements in your own arguments. You've been told this already.

However, as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, the Earth is special.

Now you're resorting to begging the question.

"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."

Maybe I am missing something here, but I fail to see how my argument is begging the question. I am neither assuming my original point nor dodging the question. Begging the question looks like this:

"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"The Earth is disc-shaped."

and drag is about relative velocity again. the paper is stationary. therefore the air must be moving, what makes the air move? and don't say the earth, cause there' s noway that the gust would reach 5 miles high.

And why would the air be always accelerating up wards? earth pushes air AT THE BOTTOM.

smack yourself in the face, and you will notice that you don't feel the gust of air untill your hand is near you. if If were to hold a disk, and somehow push it forward at 9.8m/s/s, then the air ten feet in front of it would not be traveling at that speed.

More nonsense. The entire atmolayer is being accelerated upward by the flat Earth, in the same way the entire atmosphere is being pulled down by gravity on the round earth. Any inertial object within the atmolayer of FE is influenced by drag, in the same way any free-falling object within the atmosphere of RE is influenced by drag. THE OBSERVED EFFECTS ARE EQUIVALENT. I cannot figure out how you can consistently fail to understand the fact that the air is moving relative to inertial observers because the Earth is pushing it. It is a very simple concept.

I have already explained the physics of drag on an accelerating Flat Earth few posts ago. It has also been mentioned several times on the forum, so use the search function. Understand it and realize the errors you are making. I am done with you on this.

lrn2atomic clock: time on clocks on planes or skyscrapers have shown time delays which are larger then their margin of error. the gravitational time dilation phenomena exist, give up on UA, or forever be wrong
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

Still haven't heard why time dilation is wrong.

Perhaps you can explain how time dilation will not be possible on a flat Earth.

Kind gentleman, for the five billionth time,
1. take camera
2. film vid
3. see increase in acceleration
4. ?
5. PROFIT

My point is if you were to have the function h(t) of the objects height, then you could determine whether it had constant acceleration or if acceleration increased aka because of gravity from the earth.

My friend, acceleration is not velocity. The Earth's acceleration is approximately 9.8m/s²; its acceleration is not increasing.

What did YOU mean by "any gravity?"
You used that wording before I did.
what you did say was, for the Earth to be a disc, it "must not exert any gravitational field."

Either the Earth exerts gravitation in accordance to its mass or it exerts none. I did not see how it is possible for the Earth, despite its large mass, to generate a small gravitational field or any gravitational field not in accordance to its mass without violating General Relativity, and thus I meant "not exerting any gravitational field" as "not exerting its own gravitational field".

Earth COULD have a weak gravitational field and still be in the shape of a disc.

Are you seriously trying to argue that, despite its large mass, the Earth can generate a gravitational field equivalent or identical to the one generated by something (e.g., half-dollar) much less massive than it, even though gravitation and mass are related? How does that make any sense?

...When you admitted that an object can be disc-shaped and still exert a gravitational field without collapsing.  It's a weak one, as we both agree, but it's still there.  Your "any" claim has fallen apart by your own hands.

If you insist that it was poorly worded on my part, so be it. As stated above, I say what I mean.

"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."

You forgot an option:

"...or the Earth is round, which explains everything."

Are you seriously trying to argue that, despite its large mass, the Earth can generate a gravitational field equivalent or identical to the one generated by something (e.g., half-dollar) much less massive than it, even though gravitation and mass are related? How does that make any sense?

Considering you can't put a working map together or even agree on how large the planet is, I'm curious how you think you know the Earth's mass.

However, as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, the Earth is special.

And as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, that is a special case pleading without reason.

Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?

You're in pixie land Jack.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 13, 2010, 07:44:16 AM

Now you're resorting to begging the question.

"The Earth is a disc." <----- here
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."

Maybe I am missing something here.

You are. See above.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 13, 2010, 07:44:16 AM

But the earth is made of matter. All matter exerts a gravitational field, and the effects of gravitational fields are measurable. You rely on these statements in your own arguments. You've been told this already.

However, as said many times since the beginning of this site, and as I have argued so far in this thread, the Earth is special.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 13, 2010, 07:44:16 AM

Now you're resorting to begging the question.

"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."

Maybe I am missing something here, but I fail to see how my argument is begging the question. I am neither assuming my original point nor dodging the question. Begging the question looks like this:

"The Earth is a disc."
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"The Earth is disc-shaped."

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 11:38:34 AM

and drag is about relative velocity again. the paper is stationary. therefore the air must be moving, what makes the air move? and don't say the earth, cause there' s noway that the gust would reach 5 miles high.

And why would the air be always accelerating up wards? earth pushes air AT THE BOTTOM.

smack yourself in the face, and you will notice that you don't feel the gust of air untill your hand is near you. if If were to hold a disk, and somehow push it forward at 9.8m/s/s, then the air ten feet in front of it would not be traveling at that speed.

More nonsense. The entire atmolayer is being accelerated upward by the flat Earth, in the same way the entire atmosphere is being pulled down by gravity on the round earth. Any inertial object within the atmolayer of FE is influenced by drag, in the same way any free-falling object within the atmosphere of RE is influenced by drag. THE OBSERVED EFFECTS ARE EQUIVALENT. I cannot figure out how you can consistently fail to understand the fact that the air is moving relative to inertial observers because the Earth is pushing it. It is a very simple concept.

I have already explained the physics of drag on an accelerating Flat Earth few posts ago. It has also been mentioned several times on the forum, so use the search function. Understand it and realize the errors you are making. I am done with you on this.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 11:38:34 AM

lrn2atomic clock: time on clocks on planes or skyscrapers have shown time delays which are larger then their margin of error. the gravitational time dilation phenomena exist, give up on UA, or forever be wrong
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

Still haven't heard why time dilation is wrong.

Perhaps you can explain how time dilation will not be possible on a flat Earth.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 02:25:06 PM

Kind gentleman, for the five billionth time,
1. take camera
2. film vid
3. see increase in acceleration
4. ?
5. PROFIT

My point is if you were to have the function h(t) of the objects height, then you could determine whether it had constant acceleration or if acceleration increased aka because of gravity from the earth.

My friend, acceleration is not velocity. The Earth's acceleration is approximately 9.8m/s²; its acceleration is not increasing.

sir, I know but you must use better mathematicals. in Real Earth, acceleration due to the gravity of the earth is by no means constant. lrn2inverse square law. where did I mention velocity? nice strawman.


As I have explained before, time dilation is an effect due to variance in gravitational pull.
with no gravity, this is impossible.

And for the Air thing, stop treating the atmostphere as if it was a solid object. do the facepalm expierement

Considering you can't put a working map together or even agree on how large the planet is, I'm curious how you think you know the Earth's mass.

I was referring to the standard model in the FAQ. In addition, the Earth's mass-energy continues to increase as it approaches the speed of light with respect to an inertial observer in the universe.

Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?

The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.

Quote

"The Earth is a disc." <----- here
"How is the Earth a disc if gravitational compression is true?"
"Either the Earth's mass is not gravitational mass or its gravitational field is canceled out."

Maybe I am missing something here.

You are. See above.

However, I am not assuming that premise as my conclusion, which is precisely the definition of circular reasoning.

sir, I know but you must use better mathematicals. in Real Earth, acceleration due to the gravity of the earth is by no means constant. lrn2inverse square law. where did I mention velocity? nice strawman.

As I have explained before, time dilation is an effect due to variance in gravitational pull.
with no gravity, this is impossible.

Gravitational variance is generally caused by gravitational influence from celestial bodies above the accelerating Earth. As a result, our proper acceleration weakens at higher altitude.

In addition, if we take Lorentz contraction into account, an accelerating rocket reaching relativistic speed experiences different proper acceleration throughout its structure so long as it stays rigid in the proper frame (see Born rigid motion). The rocket's nose accelerates at a lower rate than its tail as measured by an accelerometer, in order to maintain the constant distance between them for the passenger. This may also explain gravitational variance on FE.

Now, gravitational time dilation arises in a non-inertial frame of reference, since gravitation and acceleration are equivalent according to the Principle of Equivalence. An accelerating observer experiences a slowdown of time relative to a non-accelerating observer. Using this principle, and since it is theoretically possible for acceleration to vary in the accelerating model, we can argue that there is less time dilation at higher altitude (lesser acceleration) and more at lower altitude (greater acceleration).

Quote from: Crustinator on May 14, 2010, 03:25:19 AM

Matter on the earth has its gravitational field cancelled, but the same matter elsewhere doesn't?

The Earth does not have to possess the same properties as other objects do in the universe.

Are you suggesting that the Earth is not made of the same kinds of matter that other objects in the universe are made of?