« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

UA & Light

  • 20 Replies
  • 4680 Views
?

jon

  • 17
  • +0/-0
UA & Light
« on: May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM »
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to give the effect of gravity as opposed to the gravity created by a round earth. I can see how as a human, I would never be able to tell the differenece as they would feel the same.

But surely there is a simple way of differentiating, for example with light. If a beam of light (laser beam maybe) was shot parrallel to the surface of the earth, if the earth was round, this beam of light would gradually head away from the surface, whereas if the earth was flat and accelerating upwards, the beam would head down to the surface as it rose up to meet it?

Surely this is such a simple test, that if the world was flat, someone would have shown it by now?

 
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2016, 01:24:54 PM »
Quote from: jon on May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to give the effect of gravity as opposed to the gravity created by a round earth. I can see how as a human, I would never be able to tell the differenece as they would feel the same.

But surely there is a simple way of differentiating, for example with light. If a beam of light (laser beam maybe) was shot parrallel to the surface of the earth, if the earth was round, this beam of light would gradually head away from the surface, whereas if the earth was flat and accelerating upwards, the beam would head down to the surface as it rose up to meet it?

Surely this is such a simple test, that if the world was flat, someone would have shown it by now?

Unfortunately, if UA was true (I personally don't hold it is), there would be no experimental means to determine the difference. This is known as Einstein's Equivalence principle. If one could show that, they could also show that Relativity was incorrect.
Logged
If you can't argue both sides, you undrstand undersando neiither
?

jon

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2016, 05:33:39 AM »
I understand the equivalence principle, but it does not apply in this case. Comparing a flat earth to a round earth cannot be considered 'equivalent'. Now if you were trying to compare gravity on a flat surface compared to UA on a flat surface, then the equivalence priciple would apply.

Additionally the light experiment i mentioned would not be testing the equivalence principle, it is purely testing curvature.

Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2016, 11:02:47 AM »
Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
Quote from: jon on May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to give the effect of gravity as opposed to the gravity created by a round earth. I can see how as a human, I would never be able to tell the differenece as they would feel the same.

But surely there is a simple way of differentiating, for example with light. If a beam of light (laser beam maybe) was shot parrallel to the surface of the earth, if the earth was round, this beam of light would gradually head away from the surface, whereas if the earth was flat and accelerating upwards, the beam would head down to the surface as it rose up to meet it?

Surely this is such a simple test, that if the world was flat, someone would have shown it by now?

Unfortunately, if UA was true (I personally don't hold it is), there would be no experimental means to determine the difference. This is known as Einstein's Equivalence principle. If one could show that, they could also show that Relativity was incorrect.
The EP only applies to uniform gravitational fields. The earth's gravitational field has been shown to not be uniform.
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2016, 04:59:05 AM »
Quote from: sokarul on May 11, 2016, 11:02:47 AM
Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
Quote from: jon on May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to give the effect of gravity as opposed to the gravity created by a round earth. I can see how as a human, I would never be able to tell the differenece as they would feel the same.

But surely there is a simple way of differentiating, for example with light. If a beam of light (laser beam maybe) was shot parrallel to the surface of the earth, if the earth was round, this beam of light would gradually head away from the surface, whereas if the earth was flat and accelerating upwards, the beam would head down to the surface as it rose up to meet it?

Surely this is such a simple test, that if the world was flat, someone would have shown it by now?

Unfortunately, if UA was true (I personally don't hold it is), there would be no experimental means to determine the difference. This is known as Einstein's Equivalence principle. If one could show that, they could also show that Relativity was incorrect.
The EP only applies to uniform gravitational fields. The earth's gravitational field has been shown to not be uniform.
You should know by now that claiming "The earth's gravitational field has been shown to not be uniform." stops a thread in its tracks!
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2016, 06:54:10 AM »
Not really. As has been noted by other flatists, it could be that mass creates less pull than we think creating the non-uniform field. Or that the heavens exert an influence
Logged
If you can't argue both sides, you undrstand undersando neiither
*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2016, 09:29:53 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz on May 13, 2016, 04:59:05 AM
Quote from: sokarul on May 11, 2016, 11:02:47 AM
Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
Quote from: jon on May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to give the effect of gravity as opposed to the gravity created by a round earth. I can see how as a human, I would never be able to tell the differenece as they would feel the same.

But surely there is a simple way of differentiating, for example with light. If a beam of light (laser beam maybe) was shot parrallel to the surface of the earth, if the earth was round, this beam of light would gradually head away from the surface, whereas if the earth was flat and accelerating upwards, the beam would head down to the surface as it rose up to meet it?

Surely this is such a simple test, that if the world was flat, someone would have shown it by now?

Unfortunately, if UA was true (I personally don't hold it is), there would be no experimental means to determine the difference. This is known as Einstein's Equivalence principle. If one could show that, they could also show that Relativity was incorrect.
The EP only applies to uniform gravitational fields. The earth's gravitational field has been shown to not be uniform.
You should know by now that claiming "The earth's gravitational field has been shown to not be uniform." stops a thread in its tracks!
Indeed, it is not uniform.
Gravitational acceleration at Palo Alto, CA :
9.78933730054 m/s^2


Gravitational acceleration at Beijing, China :
9.78920541783 m/s^2

Odd yes?
Logged
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2016, 10:52:58 PM »
Quote from: TheSchwa1337 on May 14, 2016, 09:29:53 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on May 13, 2016, 04:59:05 AM
Quote from: sokarul on May 11, 2016, 11:02:47 AM
Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
Quote from: jon on May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to give the effect of gravity as opposed to the gravity created by a round earth. I can see how as a human, I would never be able to tell the differenece as they would feel the same.

But surely there is a simple way of differentiating, for example with light. If a beam of light (laser beam maybe) was shot parrallel to the surface of the earth, if the earth was round, this beam of light would gradually head away from the surface, whereas if the earth was flat and accelerating upwards, the beam would head down to the surface as it rose up to meet it?

Surely this is such a simple test, that if the world was flat, someone would have shown it by now?

Unfortunately, if UA was true (I personally don't hold it is), there would be no experimental means to determine the difference. This is known as Einstein's Equivalence principle. If one could show that, they could also show that Relativity was incorrect.
The EP only applies to uniform gravitational fields. The earth's gravitational field has been shown to not be uniform.
You should know by now that claiming "The earth's gravitational field has been shown to not be uniform." stops a thread in its tracks!
Indeed, it is not uniform.
Gravitational acceleration at Palo Alto, CA :    9.78933730054 m/s^2
Gravitational acceleration at Beijing, China :    9.78920541783 m/s^2

Odd yes?
No, not odd at all.
They have very similar gravitational accelerations, which is not surprising since they are at very similar latitudes
Palo Alto latitude 37.4419°N and Beijing latitude 39.9042° N.

But at this spot near the North Pole 86.71°N,  61.29°E, the gravitational acceleration is 9.8337 m/s2 (highest on earth)
and on Mount Huascaran in Peru the gravitational acceleration is 9.7639 m/s2 (lowest on earth).
from Quora: Where could a person feel the maximum gravity on earth?

The difference is only 0.7%, so you would not feel it, but it is easily measurable, but NOT on "balance" type scales, why?
Logged
*

AustinBostin

  • 24
  • +0/-0
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM »
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.
Logged
*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • +0/-0
  • Defender of NASA
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2016, 08:19:24 PM »
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.

Uh huh.  Tell us more about your own personal interpretation of a recent translation of a non-scientific book written thousands of years ago, and how it disproves all scientific progress since then. 
Logged
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2016, 08:46:32 PM »
Quote from: John Davis on May 13, 2016, 06:54:10 AM
Not really. As has been noted by other flatists, it could be that mass creates less pull than we think creating the non-uniform field.

Do you mean different kinds of mass exert different pulls?  If it were simply a case of mass ubiquitously exerting less pull, how could it create a non-uniform field?


Quote
Or that the heavens exert an influence

If that were the case, you would expect the force of gravity to increase as your altitude increases.  We experience the opposite indicating either this hypothesis is incorrect or there is some issue with the inverse square law.

Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

SkepticMike

  • 415
  • +0/-0
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2016, 04:08:17 AM »
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.

Is that from the same Bible that offers a cure for skin diseases that goes like this;

Leviticus 14:3

"The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,[a] 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields."


Logged
Turkish joke. A prisoner goes to the jail's library to borrow a book. The librarian says: "We don't have this book, but we have its author"
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2016, 09:35:31 AM »
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.
The thing about UA is that its both stationary AND accelerating.
Logged
If you can't argue both sides, you undrstand undersando neiither
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2016, 08:14:27 PM »
Quote from: John Davis on May 18, 2016, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.
The thing about UA is that its both stationary AND accelerating.
??? yes ???
Logged
*

Stanton

  • 236
  • +0/-0
  • Pizza Earth with Extra Cheese
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2016, 09:13:36 PM »
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”



Reality version 1.0 : Nuh Uh

There it has been written and there it is to be read.
That it has been written can not be denied.

Logged
Quote from: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 02:43:44 AM

You shills REALLY need to watch your vocabulary.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2016, 07:40:20 AM »
Quote from: rabinoz on May 18, 2016, 08:14:27 PM
Quote from: John Davis on May 18, 2016, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.
The thing about UA is that its both stationary AND accelerating.
??? yes ???
Its an inherent property of frames of references in relativity. You can either take it as a stationary FoR that has a pseudoforce (or even force) acting on it or a non-stationary one that is accelerating.  Its just a matter of how you are looking at it.
Logged
If you can't argue both sides, you undrstand undersando neiither
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2016, 10:49:23 AM »
Quote from: John Davis on May 19, 2016, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on May 18, 2016, 08:14:27 PM
Quote from: John Davis on May 18, 2016, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.
The thing about UA is that its both stationary AND accelerating.
??? yes ???
Its an inherent property of frames of references in relativity. You can either take it as a stationary FoR that has a pseudoforce (or even force) acting on it or a non-stationary one that is accelerating.  Its just a matter of how you are looking at it.

That does not mean, necessarily, that both are accelerating and stationary simultaneously.  It means you cannot tell the difference between which FOR is accelerating and which is stationary; to wit, you are claiming knowledge, where ignorance is closer to the truth.  To say any more than that is an incredible reach, unless you have evidence that both states are coexistant?
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

Charming Anarchist

  • 558
  • +0/-0
Universal Accelaration is false, disinformation
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2016, 06:41:39 AM »
Quote from: jon on May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to ...
... sow confusion and to make the true-earthers look insane. 

Universal Acceleration is disinformation created by liars-in-sheeps-clothing to discourage honest inquiry. 
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2016, 01:54:21 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2016, 10:49:23 AM
Quote from: John Davis on May 19, 2016, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on May 18, 2016, 08:14:27 PM
Quote from: John Davis on May 18, 2016, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: AustinBostin on May 15, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Just my two cents.  UA doesn't exist.  The earth is electromagnetic and gravity doesn't exist.
By the way, Newton was an occultist.  Just so you know.
The thing about UA is that its both stationary AND accelerating.
??? yes ???
Its an inherent property of frames of references in relativity. You can either take it as a stationary FoR that has a pseudoforce (or even force) acting on it or a non-stationary one that is accelerating.  Its just a matter of how you are looking at it.

That does not mean, necessarily, that both are accelerating and stationary simultaneously.  It means you cannot tell the difference between which FOR is accelerating and which is stationary; to wit, you are claiming knowledge, where ignorance is closer to the truth.  To say any more than that is an incredible reach, unless you have evidence that both states are coexistant?
Both states are coexistant because both frames of reference can be coexistant, that of a neutral observer and that of somebody on the plane. Each can chose the FoR he wishes, and even the man on plane can chose either FoR or both, understanding that its just two ways at looking at the same thing.

Take the old tale of Bob and Alice floating towards each other in space at constant speeds. Either can be said to be moving, or stationary. This means they are moving and stationary, dependent on how you look at it.

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on May 20, 2016, 06:41:39 AM
Quote from: jon on May 10, 2016, 09:21:09 AM
So, reading about the FE theory, I understand how the universal acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is used to ...
... sow confusion and to make the true-earthers look insane. 

Universal Acceleration is disinformation created by liars-in-sheeps-clothing to discourage honest inquiry. 
No, I wouldn't go that far. But it certainly isn't true. Not everything is a conspiracy. You should do your own research instead of being a sheeple that listens to what folks tell you about UA believers.
Logged
If you can't argue both sides, you undrstand undersando neiither
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2016, 02:04:08 PM »
Quote from: John Davis on May 20, 2016, 01:54:21 PM

Both states are coexistant because both frames of reference can be coexistant, that of a neutral observer and that of somebody on the plane.

That does not mean that something is simultaneously moving and stationary.  I am not excluding the possibility, but you are saying it is truth because it is metaphysically possible, which is pretty naive.

Quote
Each can chose the FoR he wishes, and even the man on plane can chose either FoR or both, understanding that its just two ways at looking at the same thing.

The R is for reference, not reality.

Quote
Take the old tale of Bob and Alice floating towards each other in space at constant speeds. Either can be said to be moving, or stationary. This means they are moving and stationary, dependent on how you look at it.

That was not my point of contention.  I am contending that the claim that they are definitely in both states is an over-reach.  Have the intellectual honesty to admit that there may be a heretofore unknown way to distinguish whose reference frame is preferred, and that you don't know the ultimate truth; this is what you criticize scientists for after all.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: UA & Light
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2016, 07:51:37 AM »
 In UA theory the earth is stationary and accelerating. How exactly do you think the equivalence principle works in relativity if you don't think this is the case?

They are in both states. - accelerating and stationary. It most certainly does mean both states are coexistent. Relativity is based on the premise that there is no way to distinguish which frame is preferred and shouldn't be any way to; likewise as UA is based off of relativity it carries with it this as well.  Relativity in its base assumptions state that no reference frame is preferred. It also says that both are co-existant and its a matter of how we frame and reference through our observational language.

On the other hand, in my work I shift the this axiom to have the set of inertial frames as preferred, something quite common in actuality.

Of course I don't know the absolute truth. I'm simply giving one angle of the truth, the one asked about. Clearly as I've said so many times before, I don't think UA is truth at all.  That much should be obvious. Never the less, given the axioms of UA, It is very much the case in UA that it is both stationary and accelerating . This is hard for most folks to understand though, which is why I had to state it in the first place. Obviously you can disagree and have your view of the truth too. However wrong it is.

Logged
If you can't argue both sides, you undrstand undersando neiither
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »