FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

Tausami continues to thrash about with wild claims about some great new FET model and the ole song-and-dance about not having enough time to write down his model. Let's help him.

He claims that he does believe that gravity does exist and does cause attraction of objects near the Earth, including the dropping ball of Tom Bishop's recent claim, but it's weaker than Einstein predicts.

Of course, we're always happy to see FEers claim to have bettered Newton, Cavendish, Boys, and Einstein. We do so look forward to their acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize.

Notwithstanding their arrogance, let's examine the claim against reality.

There was a reason that FES here chose to claim that the sense of Gravity that you feel comes from the UA, not Einstein's concept of gravity. Quite simply GR would predict on a finite FE that objects would be pulled toward the NP. Simply experiments with just high school lab equipment quickly disprove this FET model.

(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south. The net force would pull you towards the NP.)

BTW, John Davis's infinite plane model with normal gravity fails quickly too. If you work the formulas, you find that you would experience the same force on the surface of the FE and a thousand miles above it. Since reality disagrees, his model fails.

(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.

This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on it?

I have to admit even I am a bit confused by that one, but its been a long week and I'm admittedly not firing on all cylinders.  Do you mean the FET or RET model clocktower?

No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.

As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.

No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.

As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.

No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.

Quote from: Tausami on March 18, 2012, 06:34:06 PM

No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.

As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.

No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!

En serio, I'm just pointing out that I could easily explain away this phenomenon even if it were correct, so there's no point in him pursuing it.

Quote from: iconoclast on March 18, 2012, 06:37:19 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 18, 2012, 06:34:06 PM

No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.

As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.

No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!

En serio, I'm just pointing out that I could easily explain away this phenomenon even if it were correct, so there's no point in him pursuing it.

Lol...well theres no point in pursuing any topic on this site with that approach. When you can 'explain away' something regardless if the explanation is legitimate or not, it makes you question why there are any debates at all... Maybe people just like endlessly debating.

Quote from: Tausami on March 18, 2012, 06:41:15 PM

Quote from: iconoclast on March 18, 2012, 06:37:19 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 18, 2012, 06:34:06 PM

No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.

As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.

No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!

En serio, I'm just pointing out that I could easily explain away this phenomenon even if it were correct, so there's no point in him pursuing it.

Lol...well theres no point in pursuing any topic on this site with that approach. When you can 'explain away' something regardless if the explanation is legitimate or not, it makes you question why there are any debates at all... Maybe people just like endlessly debating.

Well, generally the argument can actually prove a point. For instance, in a thread about neutrinos coming from a fusionless sun, any phenomenon I came up with to explain it would get ground up against the sandpaper of science until what remained could actually work. That's Clocksy's job. Here, though, my explaining phenomenon doesn't produce any contradicting effects, so there really isn't much to discuss.

No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.

As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.

Let's see:
Yes, it is the case. It's really straight forward. lrn2Integrate

No, thicker rim doesn't help much. You'd still have distances from the NP where the thicker rim across the NP pulls you even more towards the north. And of course, there you go with the special pleading fallacy. You are looking really silly.

And a good indicator of the worth of a theory is how much effort its proponents put into documenting it.

Lol...well theres no point in pursuing any topic on this site with that approach. When you can 'explain away' something regardless if the explanation is legitimate or not, it makes you question why there are any debates at all... Maybe people just like endlessly debating.

Great summary. FEers fail often and regularly by using special pleadings, moving the goal posts every time REers demonstrate their errors.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 18, 2012, 11:29:49 AM

(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.

This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on this?

Please ask meaningful questions that demonstrate your understanding so far of the thread. I can't read your mind.

I still don't think this effect would be noticeable. Can you provide any math to substantiate your claims?

I have to admit even I am a bit confused by that one, but its been a long week and I'm admittedly not firing on all cylinders.  Do you mean the FET or RET model clocktower?

I mean the FET finite models can't have normal earth-to-earth gravity. (I also explained the folly of the Davis infinite model.)

I still don't think this effect would be noticeable. Can you provide any math to substantiate your claims?

It's your model, so I leave you to the math to support it. Since you won't document that minimum depth and density of the FE, there's not much I can do to qualify the effect. When you have the shape, density, and dimensions of the FE, please stop back.

Well, assuming a cross-section of the disk could effectively be considered a rectangle... I see how I can do this. I might not have the math up until after class tomorrow, though.

I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?

I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?

Not necessary. This is simple algebra with some geometry mixed in. It's just a lot of it.

Quote from: iconoclast on March 18, 2012, 07:21:36 PM

I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?

Not necessary. This is simple algebra with some geometry mixed in. It's just a lot of it.

Ts, you're wrong, indeed very wrong. You can't use the simple gravity formula. Your theory does not have a sphere of symmetric density for the FE, as the simple formula requires. You'll have to do integral calculus, not just algebra. You'll learn about this in College-Sophomore-Level physics, probably the first semester. For now, you can read about your error here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Bodies_with_spatial_extent. I would need a solid week with Mathematica to accomplish what you claim you'll provide after class Monday.

Oh, and I getting tired of your failed bravado. Please check your outlandish claims and maybe vet them with a decent physics professor. You're wasting everyone's time with these fail-on-arrival ideas.

Come on now, he could have some fun for a few hours with Riemann Sums...

Tausami, this is the point where you need to listen to that little voice in your head that's saying "maybe I'm wrong."

FEers may be nicer to you (except Thork, lol), but they're not the ones you should be listening to if you want useful criticism of your work.

Quote from: Pongo on March 18, 2012, 05:40:32 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 18, 2012, 11:29:49 AM

(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.

This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on this?

Please ask meaningful questions that demonstrate your understanding so far of the thread. I can't read your mind.

This reply makes me feel like you think this is some sort of game to you and you're either unable or, more likey, unwilling to expand on the quoted part.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 18, 2012, 06:53:13 PM

Quote from: Pongo on March 18, 2012, 05:40:32 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 18, 2012, 11:29:49 AM

(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.

This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on this?

Please ask meaningful questions that demonstrate your understanding so far of the thread. I can't read your mind.

This reply makes me feel like you think this is some sort of game to you and you're either unable or, more likey, unwilling to expand on the quoted part.

If you'll invest the time in asking good questions, I'll respond with meaningful answers. Indeed, I've already expanded on the quoted part in responding to Ts's posts.

Quote from: Tausami on March 18, 2012, 07:39:30 PM

Quote from: iconoclast on March 18, 2012, 07:21:36 PM

I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?

Not necessary. This is simple algebra with some geometry mixed in. It's just a lot of it.

Ts, you're wrong, indeed very wrong. You can't use the simple gravity formula. Your theory does not have a sphere of symmetric density for the FE, as the simple formula requires. You'll have to do integral calculus, not just algebra. You'll learn about this in College-Sophomore-Level physics, probably the first semester. For now, you can read about your error here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Bodies_with_spatial_extent. I would need a solid week with Mathematica to accomplish what you claim you'll provide after class Monday.

Oh, and I getting tired of your failed bravado. Please check your outlandish claims and maybe vet them with a decent physics professor. You're wasting everyone's time with these fail-on-arrival ideas.

It's actually much simpler than that. There's more than one way to boil an egg.

There's more than one way to boil an egg.

1. Placing it in hot water.

I would be very interested to hear the alternatives.

I like how you think posting wild conclusions about JD's model without any math or experimental evidence amounts to failing.

I like how you think posting wild conclusions about JD's model without any math or experimental evidence amounts to failing.

He posted the math himself. I've already posted several times this conclusion. So to complete your fail: lurk moar

I like how you think posting wild conclusions about JD's model without any math or experimental evidence amounts to failing.

Thank you for another high-quality post.

What part of the conclusions do you think are wrong and why?  How would you get experimental evidence for gravity on an infinite plane?

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.

Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...

Creativity is highly important in both science and mathematics. In science it can be used to design experiments, and in mathematics it can allow you to find alternative paths to the same outcome, which is what I'm doing.

Quote from: iconoclast on March 19, 2012, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...

Creativity is highly important in both science and mathematics. In science it can be used to design experiments, and in mathematics it can allow you to find alternative paths to the same outcome, which is what I'm doing.

Prove it. All I hear is bravado. Can't you do anything substantial on your "lesser" gravity FE model yet? Staying on topic would be nice--not that I'm a mod.

Quote from: Thork on March 19, 2012, 09:39:06 AM

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.

Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.

Then how would you reduce the pressure of the albumen and yolk?

This is a half boiled idea if ever I heard one. A simple retraction about the variety of ways in which one can boil an egg would suffice.