UA

  • 93 Replies
  • 11704 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: UA
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2019, 01:15:55 AM »
What experiments show issue with UA?

These? https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Or these? https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Variation with latitude for sure.
Weight is only way to measure gravity.
The simple fact is if objects falling was just being caused by Earth accelerating upwards, Earth would have been torn apart long ago.
That means either way you need some unfelt "spooky action at a distance" to explain it.
Either by the highly selective UA somehow accelerating the objects, or gravity, or something of the like.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: UA
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2019, 01:30:10 AM »
Through the Cavendish Experiment and other means, I can 'see' gravity. I can measure it. And it is constant enough to explain the movements and interactions of countless objects great and small.

Show me the source of Earth's acceleration.
Nullius in Verba

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2019, 01:33:50 AM »
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry
Absolute gravimeters are not seismometers but are precision absolute reading accelerometers.
Quote
Absolute gravimeters

Absolute gravimeters, which nowadays are made compact so they too can be used in the field, work by directly measuring the acceleration of a mass during free fall in a vacuum, when the accelerometer is rigidly attached to the ground.

The mass includes a retroreflector and terminates one arm of a Michelson interferometer. By counting and timing the interference fringes, the acceleration of the mass can be measured. A more recent development is a "rise and fall" version that tosses the mass upward and measures both upward and downward motion. This allows cancellation of some measurement errors, however "rise and fall" gravimeters are not in common use. Absolute gravimeters are used in the calibration of relative gravimeters, surveying for gravity anomalies (voids), and for establishing the vertical control network

Typical absolute gravimeter:
Quote
Scintrex A10 Portable Absolute Gravimeter
       
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

The A10 is an absolute gravimeter optimized for fast data acquisition and portability in outdoor applications. The instrument allows operation in harsh field conditions on open outdoor sites in the sun, snow, and wind.

Automated leveling, Battery operated, Temperature controlled sensor, Ideal roadside operation from a vehicle.

Performance Specifications
Accuracy:
  10µGal (Absolute)
Precision:
  10µGal in 10 minutes at a quiet site
Operating temperature
  -18˚C to +38˚C continuous operation

From: A10 portable absolute gravity meter
This includes a description of the method of operation.
The is essentially a free-fall measurement in a vacuum chamber using a laser interferometer for precise velocity measurement.

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: UA
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2019, 01:36:42 AM »
Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
Where?
Variations in gravity doesn't even discuss UA.
The closest you get is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
But that is expected by relativity, where gravity is the result of curvature of space time.
This also matches with the feeling of free fall.

The absence of a mechanism for gravity is not evidence of UA.
Firstly, gravity is a fundamental force of nature and it has a "mechanism" as much as any other force.

UA on the hand is not. Earth accelerating is not a fundamental force of nature, yet has absolutely no mechanism or justification provided for it by UA.
Pretending you have a mechanism by pretending Earth accellerating upwards is a mechanism is just distracting from the fact you have no mechanism.
That is worse than saying gravity is the mechanism.

Talking about the equivalence principle is not evidence for UA.

The closest you seem to get to evidence are your 2 tests of you falling and dropping a ball, but you just state the way you want.
A straightforward analysis is that Earth appears to move towards you, accelerating up to meet you while you are stationary, and that the ball accelerates downwards while you are stationary.
All it really measures is relative motion.
You know that in exp1 you move relative to Earth and in exp2 the ball moves relative to Earth.
We cannot see that Earth moves upwards, just that there is relative motion.

The absence of any feeling from gravity in free fall is exactly what is expected, and the exact same reasoning can apply to other fundamental forces.

Gravity doesn't need a power source. It isn't just dumping in an unlimited amount of kinetic energy. There is gravitational potential energy, which can be converted to other forms of energy.

Your addendum is also wrong.
Gravity does not behave exactly like Earth accelerating upwards.
Objects falling do.
Earth accelerating upwards doesn't explain why Earth orbits the sun, or the moon orbits Earth, or satellites orbit Earth or the variations in g across Earth, or gravitational attraction between other masses.


So where is the evidence for UA?
So far all I have seen is UA can explain why things fall just like gravity can, and you don't like gravity.

Re: UA
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2019, 03:55:59 AM »
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Your pulling my leg again Tom, that’s just empty words you have linked too. Proof is based on experimental data derived from a carefully controlled experiments that can be repeated by anyone that yields the same results.

You complained about the 200 plus experiments that all that proved attraction between masses as the theory of gravity predicts, admittedly there was a very small variation in the numerical results, not the ten times you claimed.......however enough of gravity as this thread is to shine the light on the case for UA, which looks like has nothing whatsoever to support it.you have been unable to provide any information on any data that would support it, all you have been able to link to is some random words of a-flat earth Wiki........hardly convincing is  it. 

Re: UA
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2019, 05:01:10 AM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

If it's just the ground that's being accelerated, the ground should weigh nothing, I could pick up tons of it with my hands (albeit, slowly. We still have inertia on the flat earth, don't we?).

The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

Re: UA
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2019, 07:41:57 AM »
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

Re: UA
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2019, 07:54:57 AM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 08:05:35 AM by Copper Knickers »

Re: UA
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2019, 08:40:45 AM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

Re: UA
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2019, 10:06:15 AM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?

Well, briefly, because it's not really UA that's going on here. Sure, everything on earth is being pushed upwards but that's because the curving of spacetime by the earth's mass means that 'standing still' would mean moving downwards relative to the ground (like the ball and feather in the video). So the physicality of the earth pushes everything out of the way.

A falling object has no force on it so it obeys Newton's 1st law and doesn't accelerate. An object on the ground does experience a force from the ground and accelerates upwards.

Edit: This video is quite a good intro to this stuff:
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 10:11:01 AM by Copper Knickers »

Re: UA
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2019, 10:32:32 AM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?

Well, briefly, because it's not really UA that's going on here. Sure, everything on earth is being pushed upwards but that's because the curving of spacetime by the earth's mass means that 'standing still' would mean moving downwards relative to the ground (like the ball and feather in the video). So the physicality of the earth pushes everything out of the way.

A falling object has no force on it so it obeys Newton's 1st law and doesn't accelerate. An object on the ground does experience a force from the ground and accelerates upwards.

Edit: This video is quite a good intro to this stuff:


Yeah, I get what you're saying, the flat earth is effectively a rocket accelerating at 1g. So what do you imagine is under the flat earth accelerating it? Why doesn't the sun and moon fall down? Are they being individually accelerated at exactly the same rate? How is that synchronised rate maintained? Why can't we see what is accelerating them? Are all the stars and planets being accelerated in the same way?
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

Re: UA
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2019, 11:37:43 AM »
Yeah, I get what you're saying, the flat earth is effectively a rocket accelerating at 1g. So what do you imagine is under the flat earth accelerating it? Why doesn't the sun and moon fall down? Are they being individually accelerated at exactly the same rate? How is that synchronised rate maintained? Why can't we see what is accelerating them? Are all the stars and planets being accelerated in the same way?

Sorry if I've misled you but, no, I don't go along with the whole UA thing or a flat earth etc. I'm just pointing out that the idea of the ground accelerating upwards isn't so silly, in fact it's mainstream science, allowing for the fact that it needs to be thought of in terms of spacetime and not just space. It's part of what makes gravitation, so planets, stars etc behave in the same way as earth.

If you haven't already, have a look at that second video I posted. It's quite good at explaining this.

Re: UA
« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2019, 12:21:27 PM »
Yeah, I get what you're saying, the flat earth is effectively a rocket accelerating at 1g. So what do you imagine is under the flat earth accelerating it? Why doesn't the sun and moon fall down? Are they being individually accelerated at exactly the same rate? How is that synchronised rate maintained? Why can't we see what is accelerating them? Are all the stars and planets being accelerated in the same way?

Sorry if I've misled you but, no, I don't go along with the whole UA thing or a flat earth etc. I'm just pointing out that the idea of the ground accelerating upwards isn't so silly, in fact it's mainstream science, allowing for the fact that it needs to be thought of in terms of spacetime and not just space. It's part of what makes gravitation, so planets, stars etc behave in the same way as earth.

If you haven't already, have a look at that second video I posted. It's quite good at explaining this.

Ah right. I don't disagree with the concept. There is no way to determine if the windowless room you are in is sitting on the ground or in a spaceship in space pulling one gee.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

Re: UA
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2019, 01:50:53 PM »
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

If you would like to make a point please go ahead. 

Re: UA
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2019, 02:13:15 PM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?

Well, briefly, because it's not really UA that's going on here. Sure, everything on earth is being pushed upwards but that's because the curving of spacetime by the earth's mass means that 'standing still' would mean moving downwards relative to the ground (like the ball and feather in the video). So the physicality of the earth pushes everything out of the way.

A falling object has no force on it so it obeys Newton's 1st law and doesn't accelerate. An object on the ground does experience a force from the ground and accelerates upwards.

Edit: This video is quite a good intro to this stuff:


Thanks for the link....love that guy, it's amazing he talks without breathing!....great video......though nothing to do with UA

Re: UA
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2019, 03:04:14 PM »
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

If you would like to make a point please go ahead.

The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms-2 upwards.

Re: UA
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2019, 12:09:32 AM »
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

If you would like to make a point please go ahead.

The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms-2 upwards.

Now you know that’s not quite true as the reading would depend on where you happened to be standing. However what has that got to do with UA on a flat disc. The problem is the two are interwoven and have to be taken together. SR GR, Newtonian physics and any other law of physics you care to mention would not apply on a disc world either finite or infinite.

The Question is what evidence is there for UA on a flat plane.

Re: UA
« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2019, 12:46:20 AM »
The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms-2 upwards.

Now you know that’s not quite true as the reading would depend on where you happened to be standing.

That's why I wrote approx.

However what has that got to do with UA on a flat disc. The problem is the two are interwoven and have to be taken together. SR GR, Newtonian physics and any other law of physics you care to mention would not apply on a disc world either finite or infinite.

The Question is what evidence is there for UA on a flat plane.

Fair enough, and apologies. My thought experiment didn't concern a flat plane, but the real world.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17849
Re: UA
« Reply #48 on: July 09, 2019, 02:32:06 AM »
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Your pulling my leg again Tom, that’s just empty words you have linked too. Proof is based on experimental data derived from a carefully controlled experiments that can be repeated by anyone that yields the same results.

You complained about the 200 plus experiments that all that proved attraction between masses as the theory of gravity predicts, admittedly there was a very small variation in the numerical results, not the ten times you claimed.......however enough of gravity as this thread is to shine the light on the case for UA, which looks like has nothing whatsoever to support it.you have been unable to provide any information on any data that would support it, all you have been able to link to is some random words of a-flat earth Wiki........hardly convincing is  it.

Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.

See Harvard University's Pound-Rebka Experiment:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#The_Pound.E2.80.93Rebka_Experiment



Light blue shifts or red shifts when traveling upwards or downwards in the same manner as if the earth were accelerating upwards. When the photons on the floor travel upwards the ceiling is moving away and the light red shifts, and when the photons on the ceiling travels downwards the floor is moving into the photons and the photons blue shift. Just as would happen if the floor were accelerating upwards into the photons.

See this blueshift and redshift of light diagram which shows how light red shifts or blue shifts when motion is involved and it is approaching or receding from you.

« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 02:37:49 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: UA
« Reply #49 on: July 09, 2019, 03:22:27 AM »
Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.
No its not.
For a small region of Earth, were you ignore all other sources of gravity, it is.
But for plenty of other situations they are vastly different.

But again, that isn't evidence of UA.
That is just saying that for these situations, UA and gravity produce the same result.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17849
Re: UA
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2019, 04:37:05 AM »
Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.
No its not.
For a small region of Earth, were you ignore all other sources of gravity, it is.
But for plenty of other situations they are vastly different.

But again, that isn't evidence of UA.
That is just saying that for these situations, UA and gravity produce the same result.

Are you talking about these experiments? https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: UA
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2019, 04:47:46 AM »
[Repeating the same garbage]

Are you capable of reading and actually responding to what people say?
You have already spammed that link and had it addressed.
Now how about you offer some actual evidence of UA or address the massive problems it faces.
And no, spamming more links without putting in any effort is not addressing them or providing evidence.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2019, 04:51:02 AM »
Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.
That is not evidence for UA - it is simply not inconsistent with UA.

But you conveniently omit the rest of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity in which mass, including the mass of the earth, curves spacetime (note not just space but spacetime).

And that curving of spacetime (mainly the timelike component) causes gravitation that acts as though mass attracts mass.
So under UA, if you accept all of GR, you have both gravitation and UA - so either you are doubling up or do not need UA.

Worse still for your Flat Earth is that Einstein's GR, acting exactly as Newton's gravitation, would collapse your flat earth into a sphere!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
See Harvard University's Pound-Rebka Experiment:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#The_Pound.E2.80.93Rebka_Experiment



Again, there is no support for UA in that over gravitation explained by Einstein's GR.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Light blue shifts or red shifts when traveling upwards or downwards in the same manner as if the earth were accelerating upwards. When the photons on the floor travel upwards the ceiling is moving away and the light red shifts, and when the photons on the ceiling travels downwards the floor is moving into the photons and the photons blue shift. Just as would happen if the floor were accelerating upwards into the photons.

See this blueshift and redshift of light diagram which shows how light red shifts or blue shifts when motion is involved and it is approaching or receding from you.


Again, there is no support for UA in that over gravitation explained by Einstein's GR.

On top of that GR would still apply in addition to your UA collapsing your Flat Earth into a sphere!

So either you choose to accept only the Einstein's Equivalence Principle part of GR and reject the rest (cherry-picking) or admit that none of the above is evidence in favour of UA over gravitation.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24711
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: UA
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2019, 04:54:35 AM »
Einstein is a plagiarist who hasen't own theories and workings. Since all of his works are quoted from others, they all have errors. therefore, writing the name einstein does not magically make your argument stronger than another arguments, but makes your arguments weaker than others because you are in a pathetic way can't find an argument and only have the name of Einstein's so called laws.
Ignore List :

Coronut
SCG
boydster
DataOverFlow 
Unicorn PC
Wolvaccine
Notsoso
Stash
Jackblack
JimmyTheLobster
Alexey
Jura2

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2019, 05:39:56 AM »
Einstein is a plagiarist who hasen't own theories and workings. Since all of his works are quoted from others, they all have errors. therefore, writing the name einstein does not magically make your argument stronger than another arguments, but makes your arguments weaker than others because you are in a pathetic way can't find an argument and only have the name of Einstein's so called laws.
Incorrect! No, all of his works are not quoted from others. They are, as all of science is, adding to the work of others and Einstein never hid the fact that he had a lot of assistance from mathematicians etc.
 
But, if you claim that "they all have errors" prove it by presenting better theories for all of Einstein's work.

And your claim that this "makes your arguments weaker than others because you are in a pathetic way can't find an argument and only have the name of Einstein's so called laws" is just your words that you have no evidence for.


But you tell all that to Tom Bishop because was trying to use Einstein's General Relativity as evidence for Universal Acceleration.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24711
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: UA
« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2019, 05:59:23 AM »
Incorrect! No, all of his works are not quoted from others.

Correct! yes, all of his works are  quoted from others. Einstein was not even a successful student. its only feature is that it looks sympathetic. Successful as a film artist. Why isn't Nicola Tesla's life taught in schools? Is it because to hiding the main source of electricty based laws?
Ignore List :

Coronut
SCG
boydster
DataOverFlow 
Unicorn PC
Wolvaccine
Notsoso
Stash
Jackblack
JimmyTheLobster
Alexey
Jura2

Re: UA
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2019, 02:43:56 PM »
Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Your pulling my leg again Tom, that’s just empty words you have linked too. Proof is based on experimental data derived from a carefully controlled experiments that can be repeated by anyone that yields the same results.

You complained about the 200 plus experiments that all that proved attraction between masses as the theory of gravity predicts, admittedly there was a very small variation in the numerical results, not the ten times you claimed.......however enough of gravity as this thread is to shine the light on the case for UA, which looks like has nothing whatsoever to support it.you have been unable to provide any information on any data that would support it, all you have been able to link to is some random words of a-flat earth Wiki........hardly convincing is  it.

Hardly. Einstein's theory that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards is well verified and experimentally supported.

See Harvard University's Pound-Rebka Experiment:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#The_Pound.E2.80.93Rebka_Experiment



Light blue shifts or red shifts when traveling upwards or downwards in the same manner as if the earth were accelerating upwards. When the photons on the floor travel upwards the ceiling is moving away and the light red shifts, and when the photons on the ceiling travels downwards the floor is moving into the photons and the photons blue shift. Just as would happen if the floor were accelerating upwards into the photons.

See this blueshift and redshift of light diagram which shows how light red shifts or blue shifts when motion is involved and it is approaching or receding from you.



What you are forgetting Tom all the calculations and thought mr E. Put into SR and GR were done on the basis of a spherical earth orbiting a sun at 93million miles, along with-all the other cosmological things you deny. Cherry picking is not allowed.

The solar system you claim would require the calculation to be done from the square one going back to first principles. What you claim is a very different ball game with very different rules. Trying to graft GR or SR on to your flat earth just won’t work.

If you want to show evidence for UA you will have to go back to first principles, and imsure you will find no help in the bible for that.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2019, 07:56:52 PM »
Incorrect! No, all of his works are not quoted from others.

Correct! yes, all of his works are  quoted from others. Einstein was not even a successful student. its only feature is that it looks sympathetic. Successful as a film artist. Why isn't Nicola Tesla's life taught in schools? Is it because to hiding the main source of electricty based laws?
Inorrect! All of his works are not quoted from others.
If all of his works were from others why didn't those "others" present:
     ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVINGBODIES By A. EINSTEIN June 30, 190 otherwise called Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and
    The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity By A. EINSTEIN.

Had Albert Einstein plagiarised either of those documents there would have been a tremendous outcry at the time especially as both were quite against the "mainstream science" of the time.

And Einstein was an extremely successful student - please show contrary evidence, not just your empty words.

But yes, probably more of Nikola Tesla's work should be taught in schools but that would not help you flat earth or denial of gravitation in the slightest.

Nikola Tesla firmly believed in the Globe earth, the Heliocentric Solar System and the Cosmology of his time.
He was, however, very opposed to Einstein's work because he believed, incorrectly, that Einstein destroyed the work of Isaac Newton. Have a look at:
What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers.  He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary!

See this address by him: HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla in which he states:
Quote from: Nicola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
I have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that  Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.

Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

And many of Nikoa Tesla's inventions specifically mention and picture the Globe.

Look here and learn all about the "Real Nikola Tesla":
Quote from: Frank G. Carpenter
Tesla universe INVENTIONS OF TESLA

Mother Earth Put to Work.
“By this invention every live part of Mother Earth's body would be brought into action. Energy will be collected all over the globe in amounts small or large, as it may exist, ranging from a fraction of one to a few horse power or more. Every water fall can be utilized, every coal field made to produce energy to be transmitted to vast distances, and every place on earth can have power at small cost. One of the minor uses might be the illumination of isolated homes. We could light houses all over the country by means of vacuum tubes operated by high frequency currents. We could keep the clocks of the United States going and give everyone exact time; we could turn factories, machine shops and mills, small or large, anywhere, and I believe could also navigate the air."

Transmission of Intelligence.
One of the most important features of this invention,” said Mr. Tesla, “will be the transmission of intelligence. It will convert the entire earth into a huge brain, capable of responding in every one of its parts. By the employment of a number of plants, each of which can transmit signals to all parts of the world, the news of the globe will be flashed to all points. A cheap and simple receiving device, which might be carried in one's pocket, can be set up anywhere on sea or land, and it will record the world's news as it occurs, or take such special messages as are intended for it.
It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth a Globe.


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24711
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: UA
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2019, 12:55:27 AM »
It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth a Globe.
Nope. You're lying again like everytime you are.



He seems does not believe the globe at all.

If you read Tesla from globularist sources then they say his being globularist predictably.
Ignore List :

Coronut
SCG
boydster
DataOverFlow 
Unicorn PC
Wolvaccine
Notsoso
Stash
Jackblack
JimmyTheLobster
Alexey
Jura2

*

Stash

  • 12394
  • I am car!
Re: UA
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2019, 01:11:47 AM »
It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth a Globe.
Nope. You're lying again like everytime you are.



He seems does not believe the globe at all.

If you read Tesla from globularist sources then they say his being globularist predictably.

Tesla may have begged to differ from your assumptions. And it seems you have been out-tesla-ed.

Nikola Tesla Quotes:

"A single ray of light from a distant star falling upon the eye of a tyrant in bygone times may have altered the course of his life, may have changed the destiny of nations, may have transformed the surface of the globe, so intricate, so inconceivably complex are the processes in Nature.”

From: "On Light And Other High Frequency Phenomena" A lecture delivered before the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia (24 February 1893), and before the National Electric Light Association, St. Louis (1 March 1893), published in The Electrical review (9 June 1893), p. Page 683; also in The Inventions, Researches And Writings of Nikola Tesla (1894)


"He will be able to call up, from his desk, and talk to any telephone subscriber on the globe, without any change whatever in the existing equipment.”

From: On the Wardenclyffe Tower, in "The Future of the Wireless Art" in Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony (1908)

There are a bunch more Tesla references to a 'globe', but I'm too tired to copy and paste them all. Look them up for yourself if you have questions.
Yes Stash.

I am clearly the product of castrated machine learning.

You are quite obviously, human.