Acceleration

Its not post hoc or ad hoc. Completely legitimate science

You seem to have a very strange idea of what these words mean.

It is something invented purely to explain these variations in g where all it does, is cause variation in g.
It is completely untestable.
That is not science.

He says with a notable lack of irony or self-awareness...

There isn't one single, unified answer to that. For some, it's just Gravity (which can work if Earth is taken to be an infinite plane), for others it is density, and some think UA is the answer and have ideas about what might cause variations in Gravity. I'm sure there are more that I'm missing.

But until Ski's arrival, I don't know that anyone in this thread would have been championing UA. I'm not sure that he will want to take up that task or not; I'm not trying to speak for anyone.

Because the only specific answer you gave me is gravity could work, Ill show you this video. Of course since the planet could be an infinite plane then it would be irrelevant but I need some support for that one. This is a gravitational simulation used by Vsauce and created by Yeti Dynamics that I feel represents what would happen. Watch this from roughly 30 seconds to 2 minutes.



If you have support of Earth being an infinite plane, I will gladly accept that you are correct in that aspect. In fact, I will accept math as valid evidence, if you can provide it.

Yes, objects of mass would contribute to the SEM tensor.

Such the as yet undefined but very huge mass of the earth?

Quote from: boydster on June 03, 2018, 10:31:26 AM

There isn't one single, unified answer to that. For some, it's just Gravity (which can work if Earth is taken to be an infinite plane), for others it is density, and some think UA is the answer and have ideas about what might cause variations in Gravity. I'm sure there are more that I'm missing.

But until Ski's arrival, I don't know that anyone in this thread would have been championing UA. I'm not sure that he will want to take up that task or not; I'm not trying to speak for anyone.

Because the only specific answer you gave me is gravity could work, Ill show you this video. Of course since the planet could be an infinite plane then it would be irrelevant but I need some support for that one. This is a gravitational simulation used by Vsauce and created by Yeti Dynamics that I feel represents what would happen. Watch this from roughly 30 seconds to 2 minutes.



If you have support of Earth being an infinite plane, I will gladly accept that you are correct in that aspect. In fact, I will accept math as valid evidence, if you can provide it.

I don't have a link to John Davis' thread handy, but you can probably find it in the search. He showed his supporting math there. Or ask him about it.

As far as specifics about the others, Ski has been discussing UA in this very thread and others over that past few days, and for density you'll want to search Sceptimatic's denspressure or denpressure. I'm on my mobile, so looking for links to share is a bit cumbersome but these should not be hard to find.

Quote from: boydster on June 03, 2018, 10:31:26 AM

There isn't one single, unified answer to that. For some, it's just Gravity (which can work if Earth is taken to be an infinite plane), for others it is density, and some think UA is the answer and have ideas about what might cause variations in Gravity. I'm sure there are more that I'm missing.

But until Ski's arrival, I don't know that anyone in this thread would have been championing UA. I'm not sure that he will want to take up that task or not; I'm not trying to speak for anyone.

Because the only specific answer you gave me is gravity could work, Ill show you this video. Of course since the planet could be an infinite plane then it would be irrelevant but I need some support for that one. This is a gravitational simulation used by Vsauce and created by Yeti Dynamics that I feel represents what would happen. Watch this from roughly 30 seconds to 2 minutes.



If you have support of Earth being an infinite plane, I will gladly accept that you are correct in that aspect. In fact, I will accept math as valid evidence, if you can provide it.

Well, I don't have any support of Earth being an infinite plane. It's a theory of John Davis (assisted I believe jroa) though Space Cow Girl might subscribe to it too.
It is in the Wiki, but I think this is a fair copy and much easier to read.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Flat Earth Wiki has another theory for gravity that involves neither acceleration nor denpressure:

Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki

Infinite Flat Earth

The infinite flat earth theory has been talked about by writers such as Samuel Rowbotham, Voliva and Shenton. It is a stationary geocentric earth model.

Gravitational Theory

Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull.

Infinite Finite Gravitational Pull and Gauss' Law

American Flat Earth President John Davis and forum administrator jroa came up with the formulation of the gravitational pull of an infinite plane. It follows Gauss's Law for gravitation which states that an infinite slab or plane will have a finite gravitational pull equal to 2π G ρ h where G is the gravitational constant, p is density, and h is the depth of the slab. As we can see horizontal forces "cancel" out and we are left with a converging sum for vertical components.

The mathematical formulation of this is as follows:


From Infinite Flat Earth

The "maths hang together" and an infinite flat plane earth would be stable,

but a "not-quite-infinite" plane earth would not be and would collapse in on itself in guess how long - not-quite-infinite time.

But, it's definitely not my theory, take it up with John Davis, "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time" as proven in

Quote from: John Davis on December 17, 2016, 11:53:35 AM

I am . . . .  the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.

Mind you the text states "a finite gravitational pull equal to 2π G ρ h" but the maths only have g = 2π G ρ. Someone lost an h.

I doubt there's much more on it but you could do a search.

Of course, saying "Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull" he is simply expressing "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" without mentioning Newton's name.

Well, I don't have any support of Earth being an infinite plane. It's a theory of John Davis (assisted I believe jroa) though Space Cow Girl might subscribe to it too.
It is in the Wiki, but I think this is a fair copy and much easier to read.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 27, 2017, 05:59:42 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Flat Earth Wiki has another theory for gravity that involves neither acceleration nor denpressure:

Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki

Infinite Flat Earth

The infinite flat earth theory has been talked about by writers such as Samuel Rowbotham, Voliva and Shenton. It is a stationary geocentric earth model.

Gravitational Theory

Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull.

Infinite Finite Gravitational Pull and Gauss' Law

American Flat Earth President John Davis and forum administrator jroa came up with the formulation of the gravitational pull of an infinite plane. It follows Gauss's Law for gravitation which states that an infinite slab or plane will have a finite gravitational pull equal to 2π G ρ h where G is the gravitational constant, p is density, and h is the depth of the slab. As we can see horizontal forces "cancel" out and we are left with a converging sum for vertical components.

The mathematical formulation of this is as follows:


From Infinite Flat Earth

The "maths hang together" and an infinite flat plane earth would be stable,

but a "not-quite-infinite" plane earth would not be and would collapse in on itself in guess how long - not-quite-infinite time.

But, it's definitely not my theory, take it up with John Davis, "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time" as proven in

Quote from: John Davis on December 17, 2016, 11:53:35 AM

I am . . . .  the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.

Mind you the text states "a finite gravitational pull equal to 2π G ρ h" but the maths only have g = 2π G ρ. Someone lost an h.

I doubt there's much more on it but you could do a search.

Of course, saying "Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull" he is simply expressing "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" without mentioning Newton's name.

That is a Bouguer plate. The problem with it is, that the strength of the gravitational field above the plate is independent of the distance to the plate.

Observations show, that this is not the case. The decrease in g is about 3.1 µm/s² per additional meter altitude above sea level.

Therefore, the earth disk is not infinite.

So, technically the infinite flat earth theory would have the same effect on celestial objects as UAT. All objects would need to accelerate with 1g up to keep a constant distance from earth, no matter how far away they are.

How could this be explained for e.g. comet tails? According to this, comet tails should neither point along the comet’s path, nor away from the sun; they should point to earth.

No, the earth is not accelerating in the infinite model. It has gravity, so do the other celestial objects.

No, the earth is not accelerating in the infinite model. It has gravity, so do the other celestial objects.

Yes, in the infinite modell the earth does not accelerate up. But it inflicts a downward (vertical towards the earth plane) acceleration of 1g on all objects (or an equivalent force according to its mass) above it, no matter how far above the earth plane the object is.

Therefore, each object in the universe must have a “lift” of 1g to counter earth’s universal gravity.

The earth’s gravitational field in this modell has parallel field lines. Therefore, the field’s strength does not decrease with distance.

So, an infinite earth plane causes more problems than it solves.

The amount of downward acceleration  would still decrease with height though. Your post seems to omit that.

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 03:52:03 PM

Yes, objects of mass would contribute to the SEM tensor.

Such the as yet undefined but very huge mass of the earth?

Yes, and we've already discussed the inherent errors in the gravitational constant.

The amount of downward acceleration  would still decrease with height though. Your post seems to omit that.

No, it wouldn't. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity#Bouguer_plate

Bouguer plate

We can conclude (by using a "Gaussian pillbox") that for an infinite, flat plate (Bouguer plate) of any finite thickness, the gravitational field outside the plate is perpendicular to the plate, towards it, with magnitude 2πG times the mass per unit area, independent of the distance to the plate[2] (see also gravity anomalies).

More generally, for a mass distribution with the density depending on one Cartesian coordinate z only, gravity for any z is 2πG times (the mass per unit area above z, minus the mass per unit area below z).

In particular, a combination of two equal parallel infinite plates does not produce any gravity inside.

And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouguer_anomaly#Simple_reduction

The gravitational acceleration g outside a Bouguer plate is perpendicular to the plate and towards it, with magnitude 2πG times the mass per unit area, where G is the gravitational constant. It is independent of the distance to the plate (as can be proven most simply with Gauss's law for gravity, but can also be proven directly with Newton's law of gravity).

That's what you get with an infinite plane. The gravitational field lines are all perpendicular to the earth plane. Therefore, the density of the field (e.g. number of field lines per given area) does not change with distance.

To have a decreasing gravitational field, you need either a finite convex surface or a finite flat surface. I haven't spent to much thoughts in an infinite convex surface (like a paraboloid. I think, it is unsuitable as an earth surface.

Mind you the text states "a finite gravitational pull equal to 2π G ρ h" but the maths only have g = 2π G ρ. Someone lost an h.

It is a difference in terms.
One has density being volume density, the other has it being area density.
For a uniform disc of height h, the area density (AD) and volume density (VD) are related as per:
AD=VD*h

How could this be explained for e.g. comet tails? According to this, comet tails should neither point along the comet’s path, nor away from the sun; they should point to earth.

There would need to be something accelerating (or lift) the comet, which would presumably accelerate the tail as well.

The amount of downward acceleration  would still decrease with height though. Your post seems to omit that.

Not for an infinite plane.

Yes, and we've already discussed the inherent errors in the gravitational constant.

Yes, that we know it pretty well

Quote from: boydster on June 05, 2018, 01:03:38 PM

The amount of downward acceleration  would still decrease with height though. Your post seems to omit that.

No, it wouldn't. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity#Bouguer_plate

Quote

Bouguer plate

We can conclude (by using a "Gaussian pillbox") that for an infinite, flat plate (Bouguer plate) of any finite thickness, the gravitational field outside the plate is perpendicular to the plate, towards it, with magnitude 2πG times the mass per unit area, independent of the distance to the plate[2] (see also gravity anomalies).

More generally, for a mass distribution with the density depending on one Cartesian coordinate z only, gravity for any z is 2πG times (the mass per unit area above z, minus the mass per unit area below z).

In particular, a combination of two equal parallel infinite plates does not produce any gravity inside.

And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouguer_anomaly#Simple_reduction

Quote

The gravitational acceleration g outside a Bouguer plate is perpendicular to the plate and towards it, with magnitude 2πG times the mass per unit area, where G is the gravitational constant. It is independent of the distance to the plate (as can be proven most simply with Gauss's law for gravity, but can also be proven directly with Newton's law of gravity).

That's what you get with an infinite plane. The gravitational field lines are all perpendicular to the earth plane. Therefore, the density of the field (e.g. number of field lines per given area) does not change with distance.

To have a decreasing gravitational field, you need either a finite convex surface or a finite flat surface. I haven't spent to much thoughts in an infinite convex surface (like a paraboloid. I think, it is unsuitable as an earth surface.

Posts like this are why I keep coming back here. Well, that, plus the fun.

Quote from: boydster on June 05, 2018, 01:03:38 PM

The amount of downward acceleration  would still decrease with height though. Your post seems to omit that.

No, it wouldn't. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity#Bouguer_plate

Quote

Bouguer plate

We can conclude (by using a "Gaussian pillbox") that for an infinite, flat plate (Bouguer plate) of any finite thickness, the gravitational field outside the plate is perpendicular to the plate, towards it, with magnitude 2πG times the mass per unit area, independent of the distance to the plate[2] (see also gravity anomalies).

More generally, for a mass distribution with the density depending on one Cartesian coordinate z only, gravity for any z is 2πG times (the mass per unit area above z, minus the mass per unit area below z).

In particular, a combination of two equal parallel infinite plates does not produce any gravity inside.

And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouguer_anomaly#Simple_reduction

Quote

The gravitational acceleration g outside a Bouguer plate is perpendicular to the plate and towards it, with magnitude 2πG times the mass per unit area, where G is the gravitational constant. It is independent of the distance to the plate (as can be proven most simply with Gauss's law for gravity, but can also be proven directly with Newton's law of gravity).

That's what you get with an infinite plane. The gravitational field lines are all perpendicular to the earth plane. Therefore, the density of the field (e.g. number of field lines per given area) does not change with distance.

To have a decreasing gravitational field, you need either a finite convex surface or a finite flat surface. I haven't spent to much thoughts in an infinite convex surface (like a paraboloid. I think, it is unsuitable as an earth surface.

Yes but if you look at the data, it actually doesn't decrease based on height, but based on the local mass that would be additive to the Bouguer plate and the distance from that mass.

Yes but if you look at the data, it actually doesn't decrease based on height, but based on the local mass that would be additive to the Bouguer plate and the distance from that mass.

No, it seems to decrease based upon height.
https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ065i001p00305

And there is plenty of data from orbiting satellites, but I assume the FEers would reject that out of hand.

Yes, it was further away from the local mass that is additive to the plate.

The satellite measurements are what I'm referring to. Their main purpose is to measure gravitational anomalies - you know, where the round earth is incorrect.

Yes, it was further away from the local mass that is additive to the plate.

That "local mass" is Earth, not some tiny mass added to the plate.
Sure you can try and set up a model that has all the masses required to model reality, but that would be purely post-hoc and doesn't magically mean it doesn't match height variations and thus saying it doesn't match the height variation is quite dishonest.

The satellite measurements are what I'm referring to. Their main purpose is to measure gravitational anomalies - you know, where the round earth is incorrect.

No, not where the round Earth is incorrect, where Earth isn't a perfect sphere or a perfect oblate spheroid. No one is suggesting it is.

But those satellites are in orbits which depend on gravity decreasing with height, and orbiting a round Earth.

Quote from: John Davis on June 05, 2018, 04:43:12 PM

Yes, it was further away from the local mass that is additive to the plate.

That "local mass" is Earth, not some tiny mass added to the plate.
Sure you can try and set up a model that has all the masses required to model reality, but that would be purely post-hoc and doesn't magically mean it doesn't match height variations and thus saying it doesn't match the height variation is quite dishonest.

I'm not sure if you are paying attention, but every single scientific revolution of the last 200 years has been ad hoc, or as you like to put it "post hoc".

Here's to the iconoclasts! *clink*

Yes but if you look at the data, it actually doesn't decrease based on height, but based on the local mass that would be additive to the Bouguer plate and the distance from that mass.

I did not understand this at once. Then I found a similar post of you:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66870.msg1784860#msg1784860

Yes, altitude would not diminish gravitational pull if the plane is infinite and uniform. Local mass differences would cause diminishing effects though, since in reality we aren't dealing with an infinite plane that is uniform. So, at high altitudes you'd still be further away from the local mass differences that would add to this finite non-diminishing pul and then would still note air pressure differences.

With an infinite plane you can not so simple explain with local mass differences either local variations of earth's gravitational acceleration or a decrease of it at higher altitudes. The gravitational acceleration at a given place is an integral over an infinite surface (or volume).

Therefore, to have an impact on the local gravitational acceleration, you probably need local masses varying from zero (or even less) to very high below a given area. Especially, if there are very punctual variations of earth's gravitational acceleration.

I can not imagine, how you want to achieve a uniform (meaning all over "known earth area") decrease of about 3.1 m/s² per aditional meter altitude above sea level in earth's gravitational acceleration with variations in the mass under the surface. Surely not with local variations. Maybe far away from the "known earth area" you start to steadily decrease the amount of mass under the surface. But then, you won't have an infinite plane any more. It will then be again a (very big) earth disk.

I'm not sure if you are paying attention, but every single scientific revolution of the last 200 years has been ad hoc, or as you like to put it "post hoc".

Not as simply as you make it out to be.
There was a significant problem and a new hypothesis is made to try and explain it.
That hypothesis is then tested with new problems and found to work and thus becomes a theory.

It is also definitely not ad hoc as they are made to be fairly general unlike FE explanations which typically apply to single issues.
Meanwhile, for FE you have a single issue and something is invented to try and solve it and only works to solve it.

You would be correct, if every single one wasn't accepted before the empirical basis outweighed the previous theory,  Jack. Of course its not as simple as I made it out to be. If it was, I'd be like you and know jack shit. What, did you want me to post the entirety of the arguments in a forum post? This isn't a book son, let alone a library. Check your round earth priv at the door, okay?

Thanks for your millennial "one does not simply walk into mordor" take on the whole thing. We are going to keep on walking into mordor, and you can have fuck all about that.

What, did you want me to post the entirety of the arguments in a forum post?

I want an explanation which is based upon reality and can be verified other than just matching the problem it is meant to solve.

Is your FE to magically imitate a RE distinguishable from a RE?

Yes, it was further away from the local mass that is additive to the plate.

The satellite measurements are what I'm referring to. Their main purpose is to measure gravitational anomalies - you know, where the round earth is incorrect.

Don't you mean where the shape of the earth deviates slightly from a perfect ellipsoid? This in no way demonstrates that "the round earth is incorrect".

Then how do these satellites (and the sun, moon, planets and stars) even orbit above an infinite flat earth?
You base your infinite flat earth theory on Newtonian Gravitation, then ignore that and the laws of motion when it comes to satellites.