Flat Earth VS General Relativity

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 06:51:31 AM

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

You did.

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.

Here you said gravity isn't a real thing, hence it can't be an interaction between mass.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 06:51:31 AM

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Gravity is not real.

Which necessarily means it is not a real interaction. Look!  Wrong!

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2016, 06:48:18 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 16, 2016, 12:38:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2016, 12:32:48 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 16, 2016, 12:25:33 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2016, 11:03:40 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 16, 2016, 11:01:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 15, 2016, 06:32:30 PM

What claim did I make?  That you are dumb? 

That they're lying about finding gravitational waves.

Great.  Show me some evidence that they found them and did not just lie to get more government money.  Thanks.

No, you made the claim that they're lying so you provide the evidence.

What claim?  Are you just going to make something up again?  I would make popcorn while awaiting you to squirm out of this one, but a beer will have to do for now.

Ok, do you believe they are lying when they say that they found gravitational waves? If so what evidence you have for that?

In your world, nobody ever lies, right?

I can distinguish between fact or fiction but at the same time for the most part I give people the benifit of the doubt. People lie no doubt but unless they are proven to be lying then I'm inlcined to believe them. Now that I answered you're red herring please answer my question. Do you believe they are lying about gravitational waves? If so what is your evidence.

Kind of odd for you to say that, seeing as you can not even explain your position. 

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.   

Quote from: Empirical on February 17, 2016, 03:16:18 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 16, 2016, 07:51:23 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 16, 2016, 01:08:48 PM

This real distortion causes a fictitious force to appear.

No, it doesn't.

You are wrong. GR says that gravity is a distortion of space time.
Are you saying this equation isn't describing space  time being distorted
This is an equation from GR that says mass will curve space time, hence causing gravity, hence you were wrong to say gravity isn't real.

Let me ask you this:  If I am in space far from any reference points, but in a gravitational field, what fictitious force will I observe?

Nice sidestep. Are you going to acknowledge your lies yet?

Quote from: Empirical on February 17, 2016, 03:16:18 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 16, 2016, 07:51:23 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 16, 2016, 01:08:48 PM

This real distortion causes a fictitious force to appear.

No, it doesn't.

You are wrong. GR says that gravity is a distortion of space time.
Are you saying this equation isn't describing space  time being distorted
This is an equation from GR that says mass will curve space time, hence causing gravity, hence you were wrong to say gravity isn't real.

Let me ask you this:  If I am in space far from any reference points, but in a gravitational field, what fictitious force will I observe?

Gravity. I don't get your point, it's a fictitious force, so what. GR still says gravity is a real curvature of space time, hence gravity is real.

Now let me ask you a question, is your UA model consistent with what GR says about an accelerating reference frame. Hint: The equivalence principle only applies to a local experiment, try thinking of a non local one.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 02:48:05 PM

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.

You have to be specific, which position are you talking about? If its on the flat earth then it should be obvious, I'm a round earther who will change if proven false which that haven't happened yet. If its something else then name it and I'll tell you.

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 02:48:05 PM

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.

You have to be specific, which position are you talking about? If its on the flat earth then it should be obvious, I'm a round earther who will change if proven false which that haven't happened yet. If its something else then name it and I'll tell you.

I have to be specific about which position you take?  Are you really this dumb? 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 03:50:54 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 02:48:05 PM

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.

You have to be specific, which position are you talking about? If its on the flat earth then it should be obvious, I'm a round earther who will change if proven false which that haven't happened yet. If its something else then name it and I'll tell you.

I have to be specific about which position you take?  Are you really this dumb?

You asked me what position I take. Position on what? Flat earth, evolution, UFOs, the Bible, or something else?

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 04:01:32 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 03:50:54 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 02:48:05 PM

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.

You have to be specific, which position are you talking about? If its on the flat earth then it should be obvious, I'm a round earther who will change if proven false which that haven't happened yet. If its something else then name it and I'll tell you.

I have to be specific about which position you take?  Are you really this dumb?

You asked me what position I take. Position on what? Flat earth, evolution, UFOs, the Bible, or something else?

Are you asking for me to tell you which position you take?  You have to be the worst troll ever. 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 04:13:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 04:01:32 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 03:50:54 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 02:48:05 PM

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.

You have to be specific, which position are you talking about? If its on the flat earth then it should be obvious, I'm a round earther who will change if proven false which that haven't happened yet. If its something else then name it and I'll tell you.

I have to be specific about which position you take?  Are you really this dumb?

You asked me what position I take. Position on what? Flat earth, evolution, UFOs, the Bible, or something else?

Are you asking for me to tell you which position you take?  You have to be the worst troll ever.

No. Here's what I mean:

You: what is your position on (fill in the blank)?

Me: my position on (fill in the blank) is such and such.

Does that clear it up for you?

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 04:19:59 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 04:13:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 04:01:32 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 03:50:54 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 02:48:05 PM

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.

You have to be specific, which position are you talking about? If its on the flat earth then it should be obvious, I'm a round earther who will change if proven false which that haven't happened yet. If its something else then name it and I'll tell you.

I have to be specific about which position you take?  Are you really this dumb?

You asked me what position I take. Position on what? Flat earth, evolution, UFOs, the Bible, or something else?

Are you asking for me to tell you which position you take?  You have to be the worst troll ever.

No. Here's what I mean:

You: what is your position on (fill in the blank)?

Me: my position on (fill in the blank) is such and such.

Does that clear it up for you?

So, what is your position, then? 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 04:36:55 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 04:19:59 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 04:13:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 04:01:32 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 03:50:54 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 17, 2016, 02:48:05 PM

Which position? On the flat earth or on something else?

It could be on top of a pyramid.  You simply can't explain it.  I feel sorry for you.

You have to be specific, which position are you talking about? If its on the flat earth then it should be obvious, I'm a round earther who will change if proven false which that haven't happened yet. If its something else then name it and I'll tell you.

I have to be specific about which position you take?  Are you really this dumb?

You asked me what position I take. Position on what? Flat earth, evolution, UFOs, the Bible, or something else?

Are you asking for me to tell you which position you take?  You have to be the worst troll ever.

No. Here's what I mean:

You: what is your position on (fill in the blank)?

Me: my position on (fill in the blank) is such and such.

Does that clear it up for you?

So, what is your position, then?

On what? The flat earth? I think it's false unless you can prove that wrong.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 17, 2016, 11:13:38 AM

Let me ask you this:  If I am in space far from any reference points, but in a gravitational field, what fictitious force will I observe?

Gravity.

Lol.  Not even close.  Let's try this again:

I am in space all by my lonesome.  I can't see anything.  I am in a gravitational field.  What fictitious force am I experiencing?  You said the distortion of space time causes a fictitious force.  What is it?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 17, 2016, 11:14:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 06:51:31 AM

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 13, 2016, 12:02:30 PM

Gravity is not real.

Which necessarily means it is not a real interaction. Look!  Wrong!

No, I said gravity is not real.  It is a fictitious force.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 06:51:31 AM

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Are you going to show where I claimed otherwise, or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant quotes?

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 11:55:21 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 17, 2016, 11:14:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 06:51:31 AM

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 13, 2016, 12:02:30 PM

Gravity is not real.

Which necessarily means it is not a real interaction. Look!  Wrong!

No, I said gravity is not real.  It is a fictitious force.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 17, 2016, 11:14:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 06:51:31 AM

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Are you going to show where I claimed otherwise, or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant quotes?

I already did. You are either too stupid to see it, you are too deluded to see it, too arrogant to admit it or a troll. I don't really care which.

Please, more Jack in this thread and less Engineer for the sake of all.

I already did.

I know you already posted irrelevant quotes. 

Please back up your claim with relevant quotes.

This does not fit with the current posts here, but it is related to "Flat Earth VS General Relativity".

If we accept relativity, and The Flat Earth Society seems to, then we must accept time dilation, etc.

So, if the earth were to start accelerating at 9.8 m/s² 15 billion years ago[nb]This "maximum time" is chosen to extend the "time since creation" as long as possible![/nb] (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the accelerating earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth!
(see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)

Now, since to best of my memory I am rather older than 45.5 years, this all gets a bit hard to explain.

Rabinoz just won the thread guys.

Thanks for your input, I had fun.
Hope you guys did too.

Quote from: Empirical on February 17, 2016, 02:50:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 17, 2016, 11:13:38 AM

Let me ask you this:  If I am in space far from any reference points, but in a gravitational field, what fictitious force will I observe?

Gravity.

Lol.  Not even close.  Let's try this again:

I am in space all by my lonesome.  I can't see anything.  I am in a gravitational field.  What fictitious force am I experiencing?  You said the distortion of space time causes a fictitious force.  What is it?

You will feel a force of a gravitational nature stretching you out, it's only large enough to notice if you are near a neutron star or black hole, but you're still experiencing it when the field is weaker. I think it's called a tidal force.

This does not fit with the current posts here, but it is related to "Flat Earth VS General Relativity".

If we accept relativity, and The Flat Earth Society seems to, then we must accept time dilation, etc.

So, if the earth were to start accelerating at 9.8 m/s² 15 billion years ago[nb]This "maximum time" is chosen to extend the "time since creation" as long as possible![/nb] (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the accelerating earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth!
(see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)

Now, since to best of my memory I am rather older than 45.5 years, this all gets a bit hard to explain.

I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures! Any experts on relativity in the house?

There is a problem with using that calculator, it works out the time pasted on earth compared to something that isn't on earth. For obvious reasons you and everything else on earth count as being on earth.
What the calculator really gives you is this, if the earth started accelerating 15 billion years ago  (the earth is said to be 4. 5 billion years old by radioactive dating) and when it started accelerating there was a spaceship outside of the effect of the UA, by the time the earth gets to the present, only 45.5 years would of pasted for those on the ship.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 09:52:05 PM

I already did.

I know you already posted irrelevant quotes. 

Please back up your claim with relevant quotes.

I already did. Sorry your grasp of English is worse than your knowledge of physics.

This does not fit with the current posts here, but it is related to "Flat Earth VS General Relativity".

If we accept relativity, and The Flat Earth Society seems to, then we must accept time dilation, etc.

So, if the earth were to start accelerating at 9.8 m/s² 15 billion years ago[nb]This "maximum time" is chosen to extend the "time since creation" as long as possible![/nb] (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the accelerating earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth!
(see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)

Now, since to best of my memory I am rather older than 45.5 years, this all gets a bit hard to explain.

I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures! Any experts on relativity in the house?

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

As Empirical said (we agree on something, finally) in the Earth's frame of reference, you would not know anything different but normal time passage.  Only to someone outside of the accelerated frame of reference, would time be slowing/normal (depends on the frame of reference).

Good try though.  Well, not really.

I already did. Sorry your grasp of English is worse than your knowledge of physics.

I see you have graduated from the 'Discount Chemist School of Backing up Your Claims'.  I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised.

You taught us well.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2016, 04:50:51 AM

I already did. Sorry your grasp of English is worse than your knowledge of physics.

I see you have graduated from the 'Discount Chemist School of Backing up Your Claims'.  I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised.

I backed up my claims.  Everybody, including you, can see that.  I want to post it again, so this can become really obvious:

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 17, 2016, 11:14:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 06:51:31 AM

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 13, 2016, 12:02:30 PM

Gravity is not real.

Which necessarily means it is not a real interaction. Look!  Wrong!

Now, unless you can show how something you claim is not real is in fact real, you should probably find a new thread to troll.  That is what moderators do here, isn't it?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 17, 2016, 11:19:29 PM

This does not fit with the current posts here, but it is related to "Flat Earth VS General Relativity".
If we accept relativity, and The Flat Earth Society seems to, then we must accept time dilation, etc.
So, if the earth were to start accelerating at 9.8 m/s² 15 billion years ago[nb]This "maximum time" is chosen to extend the "time since creation" as long as possible![/nb] (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the accelerating earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth!
(see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)
Now, since to best of my memory I am rather older than 45.5 years, this all gets a bit hard to explain.

I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures! Any experts on relativity in the house?

Ooh, ooh, pick me!
As Empirical said (we agree on something, finally) in the Earth's frame of reference, you would not know anything different but normal time passage.  Only to someone outside of the accelerated frame of reference, would time be slowing/normal (depends on the frame of reference).
Good try though.  Well, not really.

You can do better than that!
Of, course I know that "in the Earth's frame of reference, you would not know anything different but normal time passage."
And that "Only to someone outside of the accelerated frame of reference, would time be slowing/normal".
I thought that was kiddie stuff, but my point was that while this 45.5 years elapsed in our frame of reference .
Since that seems to be before the postulated "big bang" (13.7 billion years ago) the earth as we know it must have begun less than 45.5 years ago in our frame of reference.
The only explanations I can come up with seem to make no sense!

• Maybe there really is nothing outside our frame of reference - but then what does this dark energy[nb]Yes, cosmologists hypothesize "dark matter" and "dark energy, but only to explain galaxy shapes far, far away![/nb] "act on" to power the UA.
• Some Flat earthers seem to have postulated "aether" outside, but who knows and is that "stationary"?

I am in space all by my lonesome.  I can't see anything.  I am in a gravitational field.  What fictitious force am I experiencing?  You said the distortion of space time causes a fictitious force.  What is it?

Gravity?
Where have you been for the past 15 pages?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 17, 2016, 07:31:37 PM

I am in space all by my lonesome.  I can't see anything.  I am in a gravitational field.  What fictitious force am I experiencing?  You said the distortion of space time causes a fictitious force.  What is it?

Gravity?
Where have you been for the past 15 pages?

Careful, you forgot to say from the reference point of either the source of the field, or a distant observer.
But given that he said experiencing the force, it would be better to answer with the tidal force caused by the field, because the person in the field doesn't feel the gravity pulling them to the source, they only feel the difference in gravity between the part of their body closer to the source and the part futher from the source, this is experienced as a slight stretching, normally too weak for a human to feel.

The engineer has also forgotten something important, while GR does say that a person in a gravitational field stay stationary(stationary meaning taking the shortest path through spacetime towards the future), the source of that field stays stationary as well.
He also keeps forgetting that the equivalence principle only applies to local experiments.