Flat Earth VS General Relativity

Thanks Dog, apparently most of the flat earthers are trolls, i think if we feed them they'll grow.

Thanks Dog, apparently most of the flat earthers are trolls, i think if we feed them they'll grow.

The vast majority are. The rest (maybe 2 or 3) are retarded. Literally. If you believe the earth is flat, there is no way your IQ is above 70, legally classifying you as retarded.

Just think of this site as debate practice. It's fun pointing out their fallacies and slip-ups.

No, it's not called magic, it's called a fundamental law of physics, you must always have a "just is", otherwise you would get an infinite list of reasons. You can call it magic if you want to, but then you're saying that physics must always include magic.

I'm just looking for the first 'how'.  How does space know how and by how much to distort?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 08, 2016, 03:46:28 PM

I must have missed this 'smack down' you gave me.  Perhaps you can link to it.

First page........ you replied to it....... shows a dozen references to gravity being essential for GR.......... ring a bell?

Probably not, knowing you. Cue the next shitpost....

Lol.  on the first page in your link:

In Einstein's universe, gravity is not regarded as an exterior force

You RE'ers are idiots.  You can't even properly defend your arguments.  You provided a link that supports my statement.  Well done!  That really put the 'smack down' on me!

It's fun pointing out their fallacies and slip-ups.

Oh, the irony!

We're on to you Mr Engineer.

Very well played trolling all these nice people.

Quote from: Empirical on February 08, 2016, 05:28:42 PM

No, it's not called magic, it's called a fundamental law of physics, you must always have a "just is", otherwise you would get an infinite list of reasons. You can call it magic if you want to, but then you're saying that physics must always include magic.

I'm just looking for the first 'how'.  How does space know how and by how much to distort?

By GR duh.

Quote from: Empirical on February 08, 2016, 05:28:42 PM

No, it's not called magic, it's called a fundamental law of physics, you must always have a "just is", otherwise you would get an infinite list of reasons. You can call it magic if you want to, but then you're saying that physics must always include magic.

I'm just looking for the first 'how'.  How does space know how and by how much to distort?

There is a law of physics that defines how much space will distort when mass is in it. At this moment in time that law is currently fundamental, so we have no explanation of why that law is the way it is. And as I said earlier, there must always be fundamental laws.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 08, 2016, 03:44:17 PM

Quote from: rlw777 on February 08, 2016, 12:53:11 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 08, 2016, 11:19:08 AM

Quote from: Empirical on February 08, 2016, 12:38:54 AM

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to GR.

So, how does space time know how and by how much to distort in relation to mass/energy?

There are many theories on the subject. Stop being pedantic and get to a point of some sort.

It's unknown and 'just is'.  Therefore, 'magic'.

You could save us all a lot of time by simply saying that GR doesn't offer an explanation for why or how mass bends spacetime.
Maybe then we could get to a questions like.

Why do you feel that this is important to the discussion of Flat Earth V. GR?

Maybe TheEngineer just didn't see this question

Lol.  on the first page in your link:

Quote from: Your Source

In Einstein's universe, gravity is not regarded as an exterior force

You RE'ers are idiots.  You can't even properly defend your arguments.  You provided a link that supports my statement.  Well done!  That really put the 'smack down' on me!

Hey look another shitpost, right on cue.

I never claimed it was a force, and this doesn't support your statement. You might want to go double check what you claimed.

Have another go at it. I'm patient.

I'm sorry but to me the association of Flat Earth and General Relativity seems almost laughable.
With the all of the matter in the universe is contained in something like a hemisphere of what size?
Who knows? There seems to be no real agreement. Some say there's an impenetrable dome up there, so I'll guess at something like 40,000 km diameter and 20,000 km high (I'm sure some knowledgeable FEer will correct me).

Anything travelling fast enough to see any relativistic effects (outside particle accelerators[nb]and many seem to think they are fake anyway![/nb] would collide with the "dome"). We can't have satellites in orbit, and even there relativistic effects are minimal.
We are told that GPS doesn't use satellites, so it doesn't need relativistic velocity or gravitational corrections.


It might come into UA, but in my opinion UA itself is really on shaky ground.

Hmm.  Ok, let me look.
...
...
Page 1.  Check.
...
...
Yep, there it is:

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2016, 12:01:52 PM

You do realize GR completely depends on gravity being a real thing right?

Nope.  In fact, the exact opposite.

Oh, look, I'm right again!

But, wait, let's keep looking:

So where is this force of gravity, that you say is real?

And another:

In this paper, written by a person that goes by the name of Albert Einstein, it shows how gravity is not a force but is actually a fictitious force (aka "not real").

One more!

Quote from: dispute on February 06, 2016, 08:03:26 PM

Gravity is the force

No, it is not a force.

Just kidding, here's another:

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2016, 08:30:59 PM

No, but it is a fundamental interaction, of which there are 4: EM, Weak, Strong and Gravity. 

What does that have to do with gravity being a fictitious force?

Boy, Dog, you look really idiotic right now.  But please continue.  This is great fun.

There is a law of physics that defines how much space will distort when mass is in it. At this moment in time that law is currently fundamental, so we have no explanation of why that law is the way it is. And as I said earlier, there must always be fundamental laws.

All you had to type was 'magic'.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2016, 08:30:59 PM

No, but it is a fundamental interaction, of which there are 4: EM, Weak, Strong and Gravity. 

What does that have to do with gravity being a fictitious force?

It just speaks to the fact that your insistence that Gravity is a fictional force does nothing to divorce it from its place as one of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

Unless you can demonstrate a fully working model of UA to compete (he asked hopefully)?  Including elaboration of dark energy?  Too much to ask? I thought so....

It just speaks to the fact that your insistence that Gravity is a fictional force does nothing to divorce it from its place as one of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

Something that is a fictitious force can also be a fundamental force? 

Quote from: Rama Set on February 09, 2016, 08:29:16 PM

It just speaks to the fact that your insistence that Gravity is a fictional force does nothing to divorce it from its place as one of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

Something that is a fictitious force can also be a fundamental force? 

Yes. Have you ever looked up the definition of a fundamental force? Because there is a difference between Newtonian forces and fundamental forces.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 09, 2016, 08:29:16 PM

It just speaks to the fact that your insistence that Gravity is a fictional force does nothing to divorce it from its place as one of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

Something that is a fictitious force can also be a fundamental force? 

You FEers really need to learn what physics terms mean, you can't just use the normal meaning of words. Fictitious doesn't mean not real when your talking about physics, if you knew anything about GR you would know that.

Quote from: Empirical on February 09, 2016, 10:13:06 AM

There is a law of physics that defines how much space will distort when mass is in it. At this moment in time that law is currently fundamental, so we have no explanation of why that law is the way it is. And as I said earlier, there must always be fundamental laws.

All you had to type was 'magic'.

There will always be a point where you will have to either say "I don't know" or "Its magic".  Its like when you try and explain something to a 4 year old, they keep asking "Why?" and whenever you answer them they ask "Why?" again.  Eventually you exhaust your knowledge.

"Why do masses distort spacetime?" is that question for GR, "Why does everything accelerate downwards towards the Earth at slightly different rates depending on location and altitude?" is that question for FE theory as far as I can tell, but even if that question is answered you'll always reach the end of the known causal chain if I keep asking "Why?".

Quote from: Empirical on February 09, 2016, 10:13:06 AM

There is a law of physics that defines how much space will distort when mass is in it. At this moment in time that law is currently fundamental, so we have no explanation of why that law is the way it is. And as I said earlier, there must always be fundamental laws.

All you had to type was 'magic'.

Magic is an ambiguous term, it would be better if you used "fundamental law of physics"

Quote from: Rama Set on February 09, 2016, 08:29:16 PM

It just speaks to the fact that your insistence that Gravity is a fictional force does nothing to divorce it from its place as one of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

Something that is a fictitious force can also be a fundamental force? 

I never said it was a fundamental force. Please read the posts you are trolling sir.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 09, 2016, 08:29:16 PM

It just speaks to the fact that your insistence that Gravity is a fictional force does nothing to divorce it from its place as one of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

Something that is a fictitious force can also be a fundamental force? 

He didn't use the phrase "fundamental force" he said "fundamental interaction" (in a previous post, not that one).  However the phrases are used interchangeably by people working in that field, so both would be correct.

Gravity does exist: it is a real phenomenon.


It's kinda weird - it's almost like jroa and TheEngineer don't want to debate anything of substance, and instead just want to trash every thread with banal one-liners.

FE'ers can't seem to answer why they think the how and why of gravity is important to a discussion of Flat Earth v GR
RE'ers haven't seemed to notice that they are essentially arguing with themselves because the FE'ers haven't taken a position that is contrary to GR.

I don't need to read any more pages of this nonsense I'm out.

FE'ers can't seem to answer why they think the how and why of gravity is important to a discussion of Flat Earth v GR
RE'ers haven't seemed to notice that they are essentially arguing with themselves because the FE'ers haven't taken a position that is contrary to GR.

I don't need to read any more pages of this nonsense I'm out.

You haven't noticed that FE'ers say that gravity is not real? Isn't that EXACTLY a statement that is incompatible with GR? Do you know what GR predicts and describes?

There will always be a point where you will have to either say "I don't know" or "Its magic".  Its like when you try and explain something to a 4 year old, they keep asking "Why?" and whenever you answer them they ask "Why?" again.  Eventually you exhaust your knowledge.

I'm only asking for the first 'how'.  You RE'ers can't even give me that with out resorting to 'it just does' or 'fundamental' or simply, 'magic'.

You haven't noticed that FE'ers say that gravity is not real? Isn't that EXACTLY a statement that is incompatible with GR? Do you know what GR predicts and describes?

Yes, gravity is  a fictitious force, aka 'not real'.  That is not incompatible with GR. 

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 10, 2016, 07:25:04 AM

You haven't noticed that FE'ers say that gravity is not real? Isn't that EXACTLY a statement that is incompatible with GR? Do you know what GR predicts and describes?

Yes, gravity is  a fictitious force, aka 'not real'.  That is not incompatible with GR.

No, and I never stated so. I think you should get your eyes checked, or your screen. You definitely read it wrong, like you usually do.

Your reply makes no sense, as usual.

Your reply makes no sense, as usual.

Read this text again:

You haven't noticed that FE'ers say that gravity is not real? Isn't that EXACTLY a statement that is incompatible with GR? Do you know what GR predicts and describes?

Then please write out all the information and claims I make in this text.

Quote from: rlw777 on February 10, 2016, 06:11:32 AM

FE'ers can't seem to answer why they think the how and why of gravity is important to a discussion of Flat Earth v GR
RE'ers haven't seemed to notice that they are essentially arguing with themselves because the FE'ers haven't taken a position that is contrary to GR.

I don't need to read any more pages of this nonsense I'm out.

You haven't noticed that FE'ers say that gravity is not real? Isn't that EXACTLY a statement that is incompatible with GR? Do you know what GR predicts and describes?

No it's not incompatible with GR. Einstein describes the attraction of mass to itself in the universe by suggesting that mass curves the geometry of spacetime. So gravity is not a "force" according to Einstein objects are simply falling along the most efficient path of spacetime. And FE'ers are correct GR doesn't attempt to solve the specifics of how matter bends spacetime. Not only that but this is currently a subject with many different theories so you can try to prove how it happens all you want you aren't going to solve it here.

OH and BTW that isn't damaging in the least bit for the case for GR but apparently everyone would rather run around in circles for 4 pages defending what they think they know about gravity than actually having a discussion. These FE mopes aren't helping either. They know what you are trying to say.. most people still talk about gravity as a force even when they know GR well. They're just being overly precise for the dumb time wasting lulz. Now they have yet to take a position on anything Flat Earth related and 5 pages in nobody has actually said a damn thing about the topic of the thread.

 

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 10, 2016, 08:10:40 AM

Your reply makes no sense, as usual.

Read this text again:

Quote

You haven't noticed that FE'ers say that gravity is not real? Isn't that EXACTLY a statement that is incompatible with GR? Do you know what GR predicts and describes?

Then please write out all the information and claims I make in this text.

What the hell are you talking about?  That's not the post my post was in reply to.  Please try to keep up.  It's obviously very difficult for you today, but please, make the attempt.

No it's not incompatible with GR. Einstein describes the attraction of mass to itself in the universe by suggesting that mass curves the geometry of spacetime. So gravity is not a "force" according to Einstein objects are simply falling along the most efficient path of spacetime. And FE'ers are correct GR doesn't attempt to solve the specifics of how matter bends spacetime. Not only that but this is currently a subject with many different theories so you can try to prove how it happens all you want you aren't going to solve it here.

Yeah, that is what gravity is. Gravity (or gravitation) IS bent space-time according to GR. GR is how gravitation is defined. If gravity doesn't exist, then GR must be wrong in it's calculations, as it predicts gravity.

OH and BTW that isn't damaging in the least bit for the case for GR but apparently everyone would rather run around in circles for 4 pages defending what they think they know about gravity than actually having a discussion. These FE mopes aren't helping either. They know what you are trying to say.. most people still talk about gravity as a force even when they know GR well. They're just being overly precise for the dumb time wasting lulz. Now they have yet to take a position on anything Flat Earth related and 5 pages in nobody has actually said a damn thing about the topic of the thread.

GR is a theory, not a fact. And I'm using the scientific definition of theory, btw. A theory doesn't have to be 100% right. Even if all the calculations in GR are right, the hypothesized graviton would behave and generate a gravitational field that is predictable exactly by these calculations, but by standard model definitions it would be a force.