The problems with bendy light

Untrue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Recent_alternative_theories

In the words of Tim Minchin:
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 10, 2011, 01:01:25 PM

Untrue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Recent_alternative_theories

The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and working to understand why IS a more scientific attitude than the FET one (duh, the earth accelerates at exactly the same rate everywhere, even though people say they have data that shows different force in different places, we're just gonna ignore that, dribble dribble). No proper scientist will claim that our best theories of gravity explain everything we see, whereas when confronted with such anomalies in their theories the FET crowd resort to either claiming the data is false or just ignoring it.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 01:11:14 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 10, 2011, 01:01:25 PM

Untrue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Recent_alternative_theories

The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and ...

If it has flaws then it is clearly not a working model. It isn't working to resolve the discrepancies, is it?

The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and working to understand why IS a more scientific attitude than the FET one (duh, the earth accelerates at exactly the same rate everywhere, even though people say they have data that shows different force in different places, we're just gonna ignore that, dribble dribble). No proper scientist will claim that our best theories of gravity explain everything we see, whereas when confronted with such anomalies in their theories the FET crowd resort to either claiming the data is false or just ignoring it.

In fact, most of the FET crowd resorts to gravitational pull of the heavens, which is the cause of the (tiny and hardly significant, mind you) discrepancies in the measurements of g.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 10, 2011, 01:20:00 PM

The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and working to understand why IS a more scientific attitude than the FET one (duh, the earth accelerates at exactly the same rate everywhere, even though people say they have data that shows different force in different places, we're just gonna ignore that, dribble dribble). No proper scientist will claim that our best theories of gravity explain everything we see, whereas when confronted with such anomalies in their theories the FET crowd resort to either claiming the data is false or just ignoring it.

In fact, most of the FET crowd resorts to gravitational pull of the heavens, which is the cause of the (tiny and hardly significant, mind you) discrepancies in the measurements of g.

Measured tidal forces are two orders of magnitude less (100x) than changes in g from region to region.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50380.msg1242255#msg1242255

Ah, yes, a good, old, trusty semantics attack. Very well, then. Here's an errata:

The gravitational pull of the heavens is responsible for the discrepancies of most gravitation-related measurements commonly attributed to the Earth being a spinning ball.

Ah, yes, a good, old, trusty semantics attack. Very well, then. Here's an errata:

The gravitational pull of the heavens is responsible for the discrepancies of most gravitation-related measurements commonly attributed to the Earth being a spinning ball.

Except that the evidence shows that tidal variations are 100 times smaller than than variations recorded.

Example:
http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/PJST10_1_656.pdf
Look at figure 2 and figure 5.
Figure 2 is tidal variation. It is .6 mgal between max and min.
Figure 5 is a contour map. (points on each line have the same measured g)
It is a "free air anomaly map", it is the raw measurements adjusted only for height above sea level. (g decrease as height increases in both models.)
It has values ranging from 10 mgal to 60 (or more) mgal, a difference of 50 mgal.

This means that variations due to the heavens (.4 mgal) are ~100x smaller than variations in g (50 mgal) in different places over a small area (the survey was about (30 km)²)

(No semantics.)

It is a "free air anomaly map", it is the raw measurements adjusted only for height above sea level. (g decrease as height increases in both models.)

These numbers were achieved/"adjusted" for height(distance to the core) based on the fiction that the earth was a sphere.
Tidal forces must be added to the already present/measured effects of celestial gravitation for your argument to make any sense.

Except that the evidence shows that tidal variations are 100 times smaller than than variations recorded.

RE "evidence" not matching up with RE "recordings" are none of my concern.

This means that variations due to the heavens (.4 mgal) are ~100x smaller than variations in g (50 mgal) in different places over a small area (the survey was about (30 km)²)

And what exactly are you trying to infer from this?

Quote from: momentia on October 10, 2011, 10:21:33 PM

It is a "free air anomaly map", it is the raw measurements adjusted only for height above sea level. (g decrease as height increases in both models.)

These numbers were achieved/"adjusted" for height(distance to the core) based on the fiction that the earth was a sphere.
Tidal forces must be added to the already present/measured effects of celestial gravitation for your argument to make any sense.

On RE, the adjustment for height is a linear function due to the large distance from the center of the earth. On FE, the adjustment for height is also linear function due to the large distance from the heavens. The same constant of proportionality can be used.

The already present effects of sun/moon gravitation should be on the same order of magnitude as the tidal variations, since the FE sun/moon change significantly in distance from the site over a 24 hour period. I have calculated this "already present" attraction before, based on a set of tidal data that Ski provided.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50380.msg1242462#msg1242462

This means something besides the sun and the moon would have to be causing these relatively large variations.

Quote from: momentia on October 10, 2011, 10:21:33 PM

Except that the evidence shows that tidal variations are 100 times smaller than than variations recorded.

RE "evidence" not matching up with RE "recordings" are none of my concern.

Sorry, that was unintentionally confusing and apparently misleading. I should rewrite:
"Except that the maximum tidal variations recorded at a single spot are 100 times smaller than the maximum recorded difference between two points on the map."

Quote from: momentia on October 10, 2011, 10:21:33 PM

This means that variations due to the heavens (.4 mgal) are ~100x smaller than variations in g (50 mgal) in different places over a small area (the survey was about (30 km)²)

And what exactly are you trying to infer from this?

Since FE base attraction of the sun and moon are on the same order of magnitude as tidal variations (see above), they cannot be responsible for variations 100 times their sizes over such a small area.

Momentia, they're either too dim to understand the concept, or they're pretending not to understand it (which is worse.) You need to make a simplistic metaphor that even people of low intellect will understand.
Ski and Pizza: imagine you are looking at a room illuminated in different places by several spotlights powered by 200w bulbs. Now imagine someone lights a candle. Is the scene lit up brighter? Yes, but by a virtually unnoticeable amount because the amount of light emitted by the candle is so much smaller than the amount of light the spotlights are giving out. You can move the candle anywhere you like in the room and observers will still be able to see bright and dark patches where the light of the bright spotlights is falling, whether the candle is placed in the shadows or the light areas. The position of the spotlight areas is not obscured by the candle.
Now imagine the spotlights represent variations in gravitational strength and the candle represents celestial tidal forces. Or ar you going to pretend that's too hard for you?

Ski and Pizza: imagine you are looking at a room illuminated in different places by several spotlights powered by 200w bulbs. Now imagine someone lights a candle. Is the scene lit up brighter? Yes, but by a virtually unnoticeable amount because the amount of light emitted by the candle is so much smaller than the amount of light the spotlights are giving out. You can move the candle anywhere you like in the room and observers will still be able to see bright and dark patches where the light of the bright spotlights is falling, whether the candle is placed in the shadows or the light areas. The position of the spotlight areas is not obscured by the candle.
Now imagine the spotlights represent variations in gravitational strength and the candle represents celestial tidal forces.

I agree. They are entirely insignificant, unimportant, and the variations in measurements could be caused by virtually anything. However, RE'ers keep bringing this point up, whilst ignoring the many discrepancies their gravitational model has, so we can either tell them to gtfo or keep answering their questions.

the variations in measurements could be caused by virtually anything.

So why are some FEers claiming that the heavens are causing it if it could be caused by "virtually anything?"
Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?

Quote from: digitalartist on September 19, 2011, 01:36:15 PM

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

That's why we prefer the explanation of atmospheric distortion.

If you accept atmospheric refraction, how can you accept that Rowbotham's experiments were at all conclusive?  If you don't accept said experiments, what is your reason for supporting flat earth theory in the first place?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:48:42 AM

Ski and Pizza: imagine you are looking at a room illuminated in different places by several spotlights powered by 200w bulbs. Now imagine someone lights a candle. Is the scene lit up brighter? Yes, but by a virtually unnoticeable amount because the amount of light emitted by the candle is so much smaller than the amount of light the spotlights are giving out. You can move the candle anywhere you like in the room and observers will still be able to see bright and dark patches where the light of the bright spotlights is falling, whether the candle is placed in the shadows or the light areas. The position of the spotlight areas is not obscured by the candle.
Now imagine the spotlights represent variations in gravitational strength and the candle represents celestial tidal forces.

I agree. They are entirely insignificant, unimportant, and the variations in measurements could be caused by virtually anything. However, RE'ers keep bringing this point up, whilst ignoring the many discrepancies their gravitational model has, so we can either tell them to gtfo or keep answering their questions.

*facepalm* you don't even understand the metaphor.
The insignificant unimportant variations (candle light) are the celestial tidal forces. The significant ones that FET needs to take into account and which cannot be attributed to tidal forces are the local variations at places fixed on the earth. These are the bright spotlights. FET needs to account for those but cannot. It cannot claim it's due to celestial tidal forces because those have been measured and found too weak by two orders of magnitude.
Explain that using FET, please.

Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?

This is never addressed. This thread questioned it and you can see how antsy the FE'ers got:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49587.msg1217945#msg1217945

*facepalm* you don't even understand the metaphor.

I do. I just interpret it differently than you do. You analogy (not to be confused with a metaphor) is very precise, and shows incredibly well how unnoticeable the differences are.

Explain that using FET, please.

Measurement imprecision of insignificant extent.

So why are some FEers claiming that the heavens are causing it if it could be caused by "virtually anything?"

I brought up the pull of the heavens because I thought we're discussing variations of local gravity, not magical celestial tidal forces of no measurable impact on the world, or evidence behind them. I am so terribly sorry that I was mistaken.

Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?

Invalid analogy is invalid.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 11, 2011, 03:27:55 PM

Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?

Invalid analogy is invalid.

It's not an analogy, it's a seperate question. Why DO you all assume it's a disc, when none of you has seen the edge?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:02:50 PM

*facepalm* you don't even understand the metaphor.

I do. I just interpret it differently than you do. You analogy (not to be confused with a metaphor) is very precise, and shows incredibly well how unnoticeable the differences are.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:02:50 PM

Explain that using FET, please.

Measurement imprecision of insignificant extent.

ITT: Pizza Planet doesn't understand the difference in strength between measured celestial tidal forces and measured earth gravity variation, despite very simplistic analogies and detailed explanations both having been posted. He seems to think they are of the same order of magnitude, despite it having been explicitly stated they aren't. He seems to think the variations measured are smaller than the precision/error tolerance of the instruments used to measure them. Pizza Planet is either thick as pigshit or is merely pretending to not understand because FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.

ITT: Pizza Planet doesn't understand the difference in strength between measured celestial tidal forces and measured earth gravity variation, despite very simplistic analogies and detailed explanations both having been posted. He seems to think they are of the same order of magnitude, despite it having been explicitly stated they aren't. He seems to think the variations measured are smaller than the precision/error tolerance of the instruments used to measure them. Pizza Planet is either thick as pigshit or is merely pretending to not understand because FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.

A very interesting argument. A common logical fallacy, known as argumentum ad hominem, or simply ad hominem. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think they're of the same order of magnitude from.

I said many times that celestial tidal forces' influence is insignificant. I even bolded the word on occasion.

Perhaps you don't know what "insignificant" means?
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (a personal favourite of mine) says "insignificant" means as much as "not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small". Now, let's have another look at this definition, this time highlighting a key phrase.
"not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small"

In other words, I have said several times that these forces are of incredibly small impact, and yet you say I've claimed they're of the same order of magnitude - could you substantiate your claim by pointing our where I said that?

FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.

Celestial tidal forces are a RET concept. Of course they're not an FET explanation. I'm slightly unsure why you think that's relevant.

On another note, it would be appreciated if you kept your side of the discussion civil. If I'm too "thick as pigshit" for you, then perhaps you should consider not talking to me. In the meantime, you should probably work on your reading/typing skills. You see, the spelling of my nickname doesn't involve a space. It's a very simple concept, and yet you don't seem to understand it.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 07:57:47 AM

ITT: Pizza Planet doesn't understand the difference in strength between measured celestial tidal forces and measured earth gravity variation, despite very simplistic analogies and detailed explanations both having been posted. He seems to think they are of the same order of magnitude, despite it having been explicitly stated they aren't. He seems to think the variations measured are smaller than the precision/error tolerance of the instruments used to measure them. Pizza Planet is either thick as pigshit or is merely pretending to not understand because FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.

A very interesting argument. A common logical fallacy, known as argumentum ad hominem, or simply ad hominem. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think they're of the same order of magnitude from.

I said many times that celestial tidal forces' influence is insignificant. I even bolded the word on occasion.

Perhaps you don't know what "insignificant" means?
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (a personal favourite of mine) says "insignificant" means as much as "not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small". Now, let's have another look at this definition, this time highlighting a key phrase.
"not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small"

In other words, I have said several times that these forces are of incredibly small impact, and yet you say I've claimed they're of the same order of magnitude - could you substantiate your claim by pointing our where I said that?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 07:57:47 AM

FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.

Celestial tidal forces are a RET concept. Of course they're not an FET explanation. I'm slightly unsure why you think that's relevant.

On another note, it would be appreciated if you kept your side of the discussion civil. If I'm too "thick as pigshit" for you, then perhaps you should consider not talking to me. In the meantime, you should probably work on your reading/typing skills. You see, the spelling of my nickname doesn't involve a space. It's a very simple concept, and yet you don't seem to understand it.

Sorry, I think I may be confusing you with Ski and Thork, because you all type the same sort of guff in the same sort of irritated snarky style. I had thought you were the one who claimed that celestial attraction was the explanation for variations in measured gravity strength, but perhaps it was one of the other two. Since this is the ONLY explanation for variations in the value of g that has been put forward by the FE crowd, if you disagree with that theory then you are admitting that FET is unable to explain these discrepancies at all, and that UA is unworkable.
If I labelled you as a proponent of the celestial attraction theory in error then I would apologise for the comment about your intelligence, except that you are then in the camp of denying variations in g.

I don't deny them, and I agree that I don't know their exact source. Much of it is caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens, but certainly not all of it.

However, the unknown doesn't imply the incorrect. The RE gravitation model is known to be incorrect. There are notable discrepancies between the model in reality. However, it still stands as the best fit RE'ers could come with. Similarly with FE and UA. This doesn't mean UA is unworkable. Similarly, the discrepancies in the standard model of gravitation do not render it false. It just means there are other factors that need to be taken into account, in both models.

Also, please don't compare me to Ski. If you think we're similar, lie to me. There's a lot of beef going on between the two of us.

I don't deny them, and I agree that I don't know their exact source. Much of it is caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens , but certainly not all of it.

However, the unknown doesn't imply the incorrect. The RE gravitation model is known to be incorrect. There are notable discrepancies between the model in reality. However, it still stands as the best fit RE'ers could come with. Similarly with FE and UA. This doesn't mean UA is unworkable. Similarly, the discrepancies in the standard model of gravitation do not render it false. It just means there are other factors that need to be taken into account, in both models.

Ah, so you are indeed unable to understand the measurable pull of the heavens cannot account for it. I was correct not to withdraw my description of your brain power.

You also either fail to understand (or are deliberately trolling, it's not possible to tell which, so you're either dense or a big troll) that some discrepancies in a model are more major than others. The things that don't quite fit with the RE model of gravity are extreme circumstances for which there is a distinct lack of data that would be very useful for helping us solve these problems. For example, does dark matter exist or not? We don't currently have the data to answer that and so we cannot answer some questions about gravity. Whereas something as straight forward as different parts of an object having to move at different speeds yet remaining the same distance apart (as UA requires) is so ludicrously impossible and out of step with any observed reality that it's enough to totally kick the theory to pieces.
Trying to make out that UA and gravity are both incomplete theories and therefore equally valid is just semantics. I'm afraid the equivalence principle doesn't apply to this.

Ah, so you are indeed unable to understand the measurable pull of the heavens cannot account for it. I was correct not to withdraw my description of your brain power.

I think you're mistaken about what "the pull of the heavens" is in FET. You claim it's celestial tidal forces, which it is not.

You also either fail to understand that some discrepancies in a model are more major than others.

I do not. Enormous bodies such as stars moving in unpredictable patterns, planetary orbits expanding anomalously, or spacecraft experiencing significantly higher accelerations than expected during slingshots seem more major to me than tiny differences in measured celestial tidal forces, a hundredth of g variations' magnitude.

Also, just to remind you, you've claimed that it's untrue that RET gravity has flaws and that there exist different models within RET. I've posted Wiki links to prove you wrong, and now you're attacking UA. Am I to understand that you have no defence for RET gravitation and that you're attempting to misdirect the argument, or are you going to present your case soon?

Are you suggesting that there is some constant unmoving irregular entity in the heavens that exerts constant unmoving influence on the percieved acceleration of the earth?

Also, just to remind you, you've claimed that it's untrue that RET gravity has flaws

I didn't say it has no flaws: I said gravity has a working model which has flaws within it but which is generally so accurate that we only encounter flaws in the areas where it is difficult for us to gather accessory data to understand why we are seeing these discrepancies. UA, however, has flaws that can be tested very easily and where data is extremely easy to come by. To go into detail: we can't go out and hover in the stars measuring the speed of them with a radar gun, we have to infer their speed by convoluted processes, and we cannot pull them down and do an experiment on them in controlled conditions. We see a star moving and we have to make educated guesses about how fast it should be going, but we can't directly test it. Whereas you can march all over the earth with an accelerometer measuring g and seeing with your own eyes that it varies by an amount far greater than the (measurable) gravitational pull of celestial objects, all of which move relative to the surface of the earth, while the gravity variations do not.
To quote from your beloved Wikipedia: There is a lack of experimental evidence relating to quantum gravity, and classical physics adequately describes the observed effects of gravity over a range of 50 orders of magnitude of mass, i.e. for masses of objects from about 10⁻²³ to 10³⁰ kg.

...and that there exist different models within RET.

Again, I never said there weren't different models. However, the parts of every model of gravity in RET all have one thing in common, which is that they fit the observed and measured data that we can test with a degree of certainty. I'm expecting you to commit the common FE troll move of confusing theories of how gravity works with theories of what gravity does - these two completely different concepts seem to be interchangeable in the land of flat trolls.

I've posted Wiki links to prove you wrong, and now you're attacking UA. Am I to understand that you have no defence for RET gravitation and that you're attempting to misdirect the argument, or are you going to present your case soon?

The Wiki links didn't prove me wrong, because I wasn't trying to say the RE theories of gravity are perfect. And yes I'm attacking UA because unlike every single effect of gravity ever observed at the scale 10⁻²³ to 10³⁰ kg, UA does not fit observed data. I don't need to misdirect the argument, because you appear not to understand what it is yourself.
[/quote]

I said gravity has a working model which has flaws

Ah, so you've committed a falsism. It would have been better for you not to admit to this, but well.

Again, I never said there weren't different models.

Intriguing. So you agree with me on both claims that the current model of gravitation has flaws and alternatives within RET?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 10:22:23 AM

I said gravity has a working model which has flaws

Ah, so you've committed a falsism. It would have been better for you not to admit to this, but well.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 10:22:23 AM

Again, I never said there weren't different models.

Intriguing. So you agree with me on both claims that the current model of gravitation has flaws and alternatives within RET?

Semantic troll is pedantic. Pedantic troll is semantic.

Semantic troll is pedantic. Pedantic troll is semantic.

Funny. You will find it was you who started with semantics. I'm glad to see that you're losing, though, especially to someone of intelligence as low as my own.
So, what's the answer to my question?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 04:54:57 PM

Semantic troll is pedantic. Pedantic troll is semantic.

Funny. You will find it was you who started with semantics. I'm glad to see that you're losing, though, especially to someone of intelligence as low as my own.
So, what's the answer to my question?

I can't even remember what the fupping question was now.