Center of gravity

Here is another problem with the FE version of what we perceive as 'gravity'. The FE theory goes on and explains that objects fall towards the earth, because the disc we live on is constantly moving upwards. If I throw a ball up it will come down, because we all move up.

To a side note here, where FE defenders tell they do not feel dizzy, because the earth is spinning, it must be false. I do not feel pushed down to earth because we move upwards, but that on a side note.

If I balance an object and I do not balance it correctly it will fall. If it is on the verge of falling it will hang downwards. Problem however is that there is no downward force according to the FE theory, only an upward force. What is pulling down on the object? The answer to me is gravity.

No the thrust from the balance point is not being applied uniformly across the balanced object. This uneven thrust is what would cause the tipping to occur under UA.

What is pulling down on the object?

The upward force.  You answered your own question.

Here is another problem with the FE version of what we perceive as 'gravity'. The FE theory goes on and explains that objects fall towards the earth, because the disc we live on is constantly moving upwards. If I throw a ball up it will come down, because we all move up.

To a side note here, where FE defenders tell they do not feel dizzy, because the earth is spinning, it must be false. I do not feel pushed down to earth because we move upwards, but that on a side note.

If I balance an object and I do not balance it correctly it will fall. If it is on the verge of falling it will hang downwards. Problem however is that there is no downward force according to the FE theory, only an upward force. What is pulling down on the object? The answer to me is gravity.

The answer to us is UA. And this is absolutely scientifically sound, due to the Equivalence Principle as set out by Albert Einstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

I hope you aren't going to tell me you are right and Einstein is wrong.


On a slightly related note based on centre of gravity (which you actually failed to give demonstration of and instead just ended up with a force conundrum) when you look at a building like the world trade centre, for the walls to be vertical, they need to lean away from one another on a round earth. And we know they build them like that because they use plumb lines which should follow the gravity vector. So if the walls diverge, what you will find is more floor space on the top floors, than on the bottom floors. But this is not advertised. When office space is sold by the square foot, why would they not be keen to sell and charge more for the extra space on the upper floors?

Answer: Because the earth is flat and the walls don't lean outwards.

A similar construction revelation can be demonstrated with the Humber Bridge.

Please read the Humber Bridge Statistics

The bridge towers are 36mm (1.4 inches) further apart at the top than the bottom to take account of the curvature of the earth.

However this is actually addressed in the wiki.

It transpires that no one has ever actually measured the distance to confirm it, and that whilst the bridge should allow for curvature, its only a theory.

A round earther actually wrote to the Humber bridge for clarification. Here is the reply he got

There is the mail address [email protected] on page http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php and everyone can write and ask about the matter as I did. And the answer was following:

There is no evidence of this, unfortunately, it is merely a theoretical
and, I have been told, rather inprecise calculation.

Yours sincerely

Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

Humber Bridge Board
Ferriby Road
Hessle
East Yorkshire
HU13 0JG

Many of the older RErs will remember Zork. I didn't just make him up. He was a pain in the butt for ages. But fell flat on his face with this.

Conclusions: RET expects buildings to account for earth's curvature. However its just theory, there is no evidence to support this.

A flat earth really is the only sensible conclusion.

No the thrust from the balance point is not being applied uniformly across the balanced object. This uneven thrust is what would cause the tipping to occur under UA.

I thought that would be the answer, but no. There is no downward force and all objects move up. Only a free object will move down, because we move up. As long as an object is connected to another, it will move upwards with it. Laws of Newton.

There are no sideway forces, right? So a brick wall will stay stationary if you put it on the road.
Let's pretend this line is the wall   |
There is a car traveling in one direction, towards the wall  <--.
 The car hits the wall  | <--- Do the bricks go in the opposite direction -->?  Because the car pivots it? No. Why? Because there are no forces acting upon it in the other direction. Same happens if you have an upward movement ^ and no downward movement. You could move an object so it is completely off balance, as long as it is connected to the rest of the world it will move upwards. Once you push the object away, so it floats free in the air, it can move downwards, because the earth is moving upwards.

This does not make sense and you cannot image a wooden board for example to be all the way out, with only a small part connected to another object.

____     (wooden board)
| (object attached to the world)
----------------------  (earth, constantly moving upwards)

It will fall down, and the falling down cannot occur if there is no downward force. Just like the bricks from the wall will not start flying in the opposite direction if a car hits it. The downward force we witness is gravity and not an upward motion from earth.

Annoying. You haven't read my link to the equivalence principle. I'll leave you to brush up on your physics.

The answer to us is UA. And this is absolutely scientifically sound, due to the Equivalence Principle as set out by Albert Einstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

I hope you aren't going to tell me you are right and Einstein is wrong.

Einstein isn't wrong about it, you don't understand what is meant with the equivalence principle. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Elevator_gravity.png
If you drop a ball in an accelerating rocket, it will appear to 'fall'. Exactly what I said. As long as the object is free to move it will 'move' downwards (if you're accelerating the other way). But as long as you hold onto to an object it will move with you and even if it is out of balance, it will still move with you. 

On a slightly related note based on centre of gravity (which you actually failed to give demonstration of and instead just ended up with a force conundrum) when you look at a building like the world trade centre, for the walls to be vertical, they need to lean away from one another on a round earth. And we know they build them like that because they use plumb lines which should follow the gravity vector. So if the walls diverge, what you will find is more floor space on the top floors, than on the bottom floors. But this is not advertised. When office space is sold by the square foot, why would they not be keen to sell and charge more for the extra space on the upper floors?

Answer: Because the earth is flat and the walls don't lean outwards.

The earth is 40,075 km in circumference. In those 40,075 km it makes a complete circle of 360 degrees. Every km we're talking about 0,0089 degrees. Do you really think that a building like the WTC, measuring just 60 m wide will really show you such a huge difference that as the walls are build vertically, the upper floor actually have more space? We're talking about 0,0000089 degrees per meter. That is 0,00053 difference for the entire world trade center. Going up 300 m. The earth has a radius of 6378 km . 300 m on top of that makes 6378,3 km. The circumreference would then be (for a complete circle) 2 × pi ×6378,3 = 40,076 km. So 1 km more if you were going around the world at that distance. 1 / 40,076,000 m  = 0,0000000249 meter difference × 60 meters (the measurement of the WTC) = 0,00000149 meters wider at the top than at the bottom of the WTC.

Can you see that difference Thork?

Your maths is way off. The Humber bridge is a fraction of the size of the old twin towers and had a 1.4 inch spread. I've done the WTC calc before on this forum. I will try to find it again. But there is something like and extra 3 inches all the way around and it gives and extra 30 square feet of space. And if you then integrate between the first and 110th floor, you'll find you have several hundred square feet of office extra to rent out. Yet it was never advertised.

Your maths is way off. The Humber bridge is a fraction of the size of the old twin towers and had a 1.4 inch spread. I've done the WTC calc before on this forum. I will try to find it again. But there is something like and extra 3 inches all the way around and it gives and extra 30 square feet of space. And if you then integrate between the first and 110th floor, you'll find you have several hundred square feet of office extra to rent out. Yet it was never advertised.

That spread was not caused by the curvature of the earth, but due to alignment of the walls with lower sections. My maths are perfectly right and show you how much more space you get at the top when you build perfectly, just dead on perfectly, vertical on a circular object.

Man cannot build that perfect and they allow buildings to be off-set for a maximum of about 3 cm (for really tall structures). Lower structures can tolerate a larger off-set.

Your maths is way off. The Humber bridge is a fraction of the size of the old twin towers and had a 1.4 inch spread. I've done the WTC calc before on this forum. I will try to find it again. But there is something like and extra 3 inches all the way around and it gives and extra 30 square feet of space. And if you then integrate between the first and 110th floor, you'll find you have several hundred square feet of office extra to rent out. Yet it was never advertised.

I spoke with an architect who assured me that although a laser. Plumb might be to derive the initial squareness, the building materials would be properly square and the tension would pull the structure actually square. And do not worry the stress from everyday swaying would far exceed the stress of the tension on the structure, so it could handle it.

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 12:48:42 PM

Your maths is way off. The Humber bridge is a fraction of the size of the old twin towers and had a 1.4 inch spread. I've done the WTC calc before on this forum. I will try to find it again. But there is something like and extra 3 inches all the way around and it gives and extra 30 square feet of space. And if you then integrate between the first and 110th floor, you'll find you have several hundred square feet of office extra to rent out. Yet it was never advertised.

That spread was not caused by the curvature of the earth, but due to alignment of the walls with lower sections. My maths are perfectly right and show you how much more space you get at the top when you build perfectly, just dead on perfectly, vertical on a circular object.

Man cannot build that perfect and they allow buildings to be off-set for a maximum of about 3 cm (for really tall structures). Lower structures can tolerate a larger off-set.

Your maths is messed up because you have applied a linear calculation to the curvature of the earth.

And what's this "Man cannot build that perfect" nonsense? Man can join two tunnels across miles of sea to within a fraction of a millimetre of each other. Man has laser plumb lines and theodolites and computers. Don't go making excuses for errors just because what is observable proves the earth to be flat.

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 12:48:42 PM

Your maths is way off. The Humber bridge is a fraction of the size of the old twin towers and had a 1.4 inch spread. I've done the WTC calc before on this forum. I will try to find it again. But there is something like and extra 3 inches all the way around and it gives and extra 30 square feet of space. And if you then integrate between the first and 110th floor, you'll find you have several hundred square feet of office extra to rent out. Yet it was never advertised.

I spoke with an architect who assured me that although a laser. Plumb might be to derive the initial squareness, the building materials would be properly square and the tension would pull the structure actually square. And do not worry the stress from everyday swaying would far exceed the stress of the tension on the structure, so it could handle it.

So you are saying all buildings are built assuming the earth is flat? Another victory for FE then, huh?

Quote from: Rama Set on May 11, 2013, 12:57:51 PM

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 12:48:42 PM

Your maths is way off. The Humber bridge is a fraction of the size of the old twin towers and had a 1.4 inch spread. I've done the WTC calc before on this forum. I will try to find it again. But there is something like and extra 3 inches all the way around and it gives and extra 30 square feet of space. And if you then integrate between the first and 110th floor, you'll find you have several hundred square feet of office extra to rent out. Yet it was never advertised.

I spoke with an architect who assured me that although a laser. Plumb might be to derive the initial squareness, the building materials would be properly square and the tension would pull the structure actually square. And do not worry the stress from everyday swaying would far exceed the stress of the tension on the structure, so it could handle it.

So you are saying all buildings are built assuming the earth is flat? Another victory for FE then, huh?

No, but you keep grasping at straws big man.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 11, 2013, 12:53:33 PM

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 12:48:42 PM

Your maths is way off. The Humber bridge is a fraction of the size of the old twin towers and had a 1.4 inch spread. I've done the WTC calc before on this forum. I will try to find it again. But there is something like and extra 3 inches all the way around and it gives and extra 30 square feet of space. And if you then integrate between the first and 110th floor, you'll find you have several hundred square feet of office extra to rent out. Yet it was never advertised.

That spread was not caused by the curvature of the earth, but due to alignment of the walls with lower sections. My maths are perfectly right and show you how much more space you get at the top when you build perfectly, just dead on perfectly, vertical on a circular object.

Man cannot build that perfect and they allow buildings to be off-set for a maximum of about 3 cm (for really tall structures). Lower structures can tolerate a larger off-set.

Your maths is messed up because you have applied a linear calculation to the curvature of the earth.

And what's this "Man cannot build that perfect" nonsense? Man can join two tunnels across miles of sea to within a fraction of a millimetre of each other. Man has laser plumb lines and theodolites and computers. Don't go making excuses for errors just because what is observable proves the earth to be flat.

The maths I use are used to calculate a circumference of a circle. The earth is a circle. The diameter × pi or the radius × 2 × pi will tell you the circumference of a circle.  6378 km × 2×pi = 40,074 km. That is the right distance. Add a building of say 300 m on top of that and the diamter increases with 0,3. The radius will increase by 0,15. So 6378,15 × 2 × pi will show you the circumference of the earth if it were actually 300 m thicker. That will be 40,075 km . An increase of 1 km (with rounded up numbers). Now since the building is not 40,074 km wide, but only 60 m, we need to take this into consideration. The increase at the top, per km = 1km / 40,075 km = 0.0000249 km. Since we're talking in meters we will need to divide that again by 1000 (1km = 1000m). This means that for every meter the top is 0,00000000249 m wider than the bottom. Since the building is 60 m wide, this comes down to a total increase of 0,00000149 m.

Man can build within milimeters, yet the difference we see due to the curvature of the earth are far from 1 mm. 1mm = 0,001 m.
That is 1/671 of a milimeter. Man cannot work that precise in construction. With other words, the off-set is caused by alignment problems of higher sections with the lower sections. The curvature of the earth is not going to provide you such a significant more office space at the top that it is actually visible. Unless you are able to see 0,00000149 m in difference.

Please explain why the Humber Bridge towers are supposed to be 1.4 inches apart due to the curvature of the earth? Makes your calculation seem a bit silly doesn't it? you can keep insisting you must be right, but anyone drifting into this thread is going to know you've made a monumental hash of that.

From Wikipedia, some maths to help you out.

Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 m (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 m (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 m × 4.75 m (14.8 ft × 15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 m (10 ft) in winds of 80 mph (129 km/h). The towers, although both vertical, are 34 mm (1.3 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.

But of course as I linked above, that's just the theory and maths. the fact is in reality that is not the case.

How is it, I can pull so many citations for you all, and yet with the weight of the world's scientific community behind you, none of you are able to find anything to dispute these facts?

[spoiler]Its because the earth is really flat[/spoiler]

Please explain why the Humber Bridge towers are supposed to be 1.4 inches apart due to the curvature of the earth? Makes your calculation seem a bit silly doesn't it? you can keep insisting you must be right, but anyone drifting into this thread is going to know you've made a monumental hash of that.

From Wikipedia, some maths to help you out.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge

Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 m (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 m (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 m × 4.75 m (14.8 ft × 15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 m (10 ft) in winds of 80 mph (129 km/h). The towers, although both vertical, are 34 mm (1.3 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.

But of course as I linked above, that's just the theory and maths. the fact is in reality that is not the case.

How is it, I can pull so many citations for you all, and yet with the weight of the world's scientific community behind you, none of you are able to find anything to dispute these facts?

[spoiler]Its because the earth is really flat[/spoiler]

It makes me happy that you started trusting Wikipedia Thork.

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 01:28:18 PM

Please explain why the Humber Bridge towers are supposed to be 1.4 inches apart due to the curvature of the earth? Makes your calculation seem a bit silly doesn't it? you can keep insisting you must be right, but anyone drifting into this thread is going to know you've made a monumental hash of that.

From Wikipedia, some maths to help you out.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge

Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 m (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 m (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 m × 4.75 m (14.8 ft × 15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 m (10 ft) in winds of 80 mph (129 km/h). The towers, although both vertical, are 34 mm (1.3 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.

But of course as I linked above, that's just the theory and maths. the fact is in reality that is not the case.

How is it, I can pull so many citations for you all, and yet with the weight of the world's scientific community behind you, none of you are able to find anything to dispute these facts?

[spoiler]Its because the earth is really flat[/spoiler]

It makes me happy that you started trusting Wikipedia Thork.

It makes me sad that you are unable to refute the claims and yet have not apologised for all the times you have been wrong about earth's shape.

Please explain why the Humber Bridge towers are supposed to be 1.4 inches apart due to the curvature of the earth? Makes your calculation seem a bit silly doesn't it? you can keep insisting you must be right, but anyone drifting into this thread is going to know you've made a monumental hash of that.

From Wikipedia, some maths to help you out.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge

Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 m (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 m (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 m × 4.75 m (14.8 ft × 15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 m (10 ft) in winds of 80 mph (129 km/h). The towers, although both vertical, are 34 mm (1.3 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.

But of course as I linked above, that's just the theory and maths. the fact is in reality that is not the case.

How is it, I can pull so many citations for you all, and yet with the weight of the world's scientific community behind you, none of you are able to find anything to dispute these facts?

[spoiler]Its because the earth is really flat[/spoiler]

Ah! You think you got me on this one, didn't you? The width between the two towers is 1410 m. In my calculation I used a width of 60m (the width of the WTC), hence the difference. I see the towers are 155m tall, so let's redo the calculations for your example.

The diameter of the earth 12756 km, the top of the bridge makes the earth have a diameter of 12756,155 km.
Circumference at the bottom = 12756,00 × pi = 40.074,15589 km
Circumference with new height 12756,155 km × pi = 40.074,64284 km
This leaves us with a difference of 40074,64284 - 40074,15589 = 0.48695 km
0,48695 km / 40074,64284 × 1.410 km = 0.000017133 km wider at the top, which is the equivalent of 0,017133 m. Which is the equivalent of 17,133 mm. Actually half of what is said on wikipedia. Could be that wikipedia got the wrong calculations and they added up the 155m on top of the radius. If you use that, you would actually calculate the difference for a tower to be 310 m high. Or they added the 8m on the south tower  and 36m to the north tower and used the two circumferences of these two points....too much details I guess..

Anyway as you see, my calculation shows you that yes the top is 17mm wider than the bottom part. Mind the difference due to what I just have explained. 

So your calculations are wrong again. Noted.

So your calculations are wrong again. Noted.

Nope, you're not honest to yourself.

As I said, either they used the actual foot of the tower, which is located 8 and 36 for the south, respectively, north tower lower. This means the earth's circumference is even smaller than the one I used. With an additional 8 and 36 meters to the calculations the towers are even higher. This would lead to more space at the top in your calculation. Or they calculated the difference using radius. 310 = 2x times the number I used. 2 × 17mm = 34mm...there you have your magical 34 mm you were looking for Thork.

Furthermore I now see that the towers are actually  tapering from 6 m square at the base to 4.5 m × 4.75 m at the top. This causes even more space to be between the top and the bottom.

My calculations are correct. You're whole initial point was that my earlier calculation, when using the WTC was not the same as the bridge you mentioned. Of course not! They are two complete different structures, with different widths and different heights! I recalculated it for you to get a number which is more closer to the one you found on wikipedia. I explained where the difference is coming from, as obviously it is still not the magical 34mm you stick to. For some reason you are unable to understand that they used a more sophisticated calculation, which includes the tapering of the towers and the fact that they (probably) used the actual bottom part, which is in the water, while I used the circumference at sea level.

These differences add up to more space at the top, but the calculations are still valid.

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 01:28:18 PM

Please explain why the Humber Bridge towers are supposed to be 1.4 inches apart due to the curvature of the earth? Makes your calculation seem a bit silly doesn't it? you can keep insisting you must be right, but anyone drifting into this thread is going to know you've made a monumental hash of that.

From Wikipedia, some maths to help you out.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge

Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 m (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 m (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 m × 4.75 m (14.8 ft × 15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 m (10 ft) in winds of 80 mph (129 km/h). The towers, although both vertical, are 34 mm (1.3 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.

But of course as I linked above, that's just the theory and maths. the fact is in reality that is not the case.

How is it, I can pull so many citations for you all, and yet with the weight of the world's scientific community behind you, none of you are able to find anything to dispute these facts?

[spoiler]Its because the earth is really flat[/spoiler]

Ah! You think you got me on this one, didn't you? The width between the two towers is 1410 m. In my calculation I used a width of 60m (the width of the WTC), hence the difference. I see the towers are 155m tall, so let's redo the calculations for your example.

The diameter of the earth 12756 km, the top of the bridge makes the earth have a diameter of 12756,155 km.
Circumference at the bottom = 12756,00 × pi = 40.074,15589 km
Circumference with new height 12756,155 km × pi = 40.074,64284 km
This leaves us with a difference of 40074,64284 - 40074,15589 = 0.48695 km
0,48695 km / 40074,64284 × 1.410 km = 0.000017133 km wider at the top, which is the equivalent of 0,017133 m. Which is the equivalent of 17,133 mm. Actually half of what is said on wikipedia. Could be that wikipedia got the wrong calculations and they added up the 155m on top of the radius. If you use that, you would actually calculate the difference for a tower to be 310 m high. Or they added the 8m on the south tower  and 36m to the north tower and used the two circumferences of these two points....too much details I guess..

Anyway as you see, my calculation shows you that yes the top is 17mm wider than the bottom part. Mind the difference due to what I just have explained.

I think you need to add the tower height to the radius and not the diameter to get an accurate view of what is happening.  You need to take the circumference at the top of the tower.

I think you need to add the tower height to the radius and not the diameter to get an accurate view of what is happening.  You need to take the circumference at the top of the tower.

If that is so, then it is like I said. If they used the radius it is 17m × 2 = 34 mm...there you go Thork...you got your 34mm you were looking for.

The radius of the earth 6378 km, the top of the bridge makes the earth have a diameter of 6378,155 km.
Circumference at the bottom = 6378,00 × pi × 2 = 40.074,15589 km
Circumference with new height 6378,155 km × pi  × 2 = 40075,12978 km There is the difference! 
This leaves us with a difference of 40075,12978 - 40.074,15589 km = 0.97389 km
0,97389 km / 40075,12978  × 1.414 (due to tapering of towers!) km = 0.00003436247 km wider at the top, which is the equivalent of 0,03436247 m. Which is the equivalent of 34,36 mm This is rounded down to 34 mm....

There you go Thork, calculations are now accurate.

The answer to us is UA. And this is absolutely scientifically sound, due to the Equivalence Principle as set out by Albert Einstein.

Getting a bit carried away there Thork...

The UA is complete and utter baloney, but it happens to not be disprovable simply by earthly observations of balls resting on our fingertips. Other than this small token of merit, the theory makes absolutely no sense, has no support from anything resembling the scientific method, and there is absolutely no established, observable, or explicable mechanism for its action (saying "aether wind" repeatedly is not a caveat here).

Thork, do you have anything to say in defense or do you accept the calculations I posted?

Please check this out before harming yourself more. That's called science, that's how things are : http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
And don't reply with your FAQ, aka "top ten reason that the earth is flat"

I hope you aren't going to tell me you are right and Einstein is wrong.

A flat earth really is the only sensible conclusion.

Einstein knew the world was round. You say that it is flat... I hope you aren't going to tell me you are right and Einstein is wrong.