Acceleration is not constant on Earth

  • 453 Replies
  • 11579 Views
*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15658
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #330 on: August 05, 2019, 09:48:02 AM »
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
But you do have a magic dark energy that uniformly accelerates the flat earth and celestial bodies.  You have a magic medium that refracts light the wrong way in order to explain the rising an setting of the celestial bodies.  You have a magic body that comes between the sun and moon to cause lunar eclipses.  Should I go on?
I'll take magic that accelerates everything uniformly far before I would take energy that accelerates the entire universe at increasing jerk. I'll do the math for you later, but obviously one is larger than the other, and is increasingly larger.

What magic medium are you referring to? What does it mean for something to be 'refracted the wrong way'? Is there a right way? The rising and setting of celestial bodies follows the laws of perspective. No magic necessary.

Lunar eclipses are clearly caused by a natural process on the surface of the moon, hence their regularity and their influence on all life. Again no magic fairies. Moon light is dangerous, a fact known since antiquity, and you'd do well to heed my warnings.

You are getting wildly off topic. We are talking about what makes things fall, or what gravity is - not any kitchen sink topic you might want to drag in unwarrantedly.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Macarios

  • 1730
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #331 on: August 05, 2019, 10:45:28 AM »
My question stays:

If one denies gravity as "magic, because it acts at a distance", then how one accepts electrostatic forces and magnetic forces?
They also act at a distance.

On the other hand, pushing the key on keyboard with your finger also acts at a distance.
The only difference is that the molecular distance between the key cap and your finger
is much shorter than between the balls in recreation of Cavendish experiment,
or between poles inside electric motor,
or between leaves inside an electroscope.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #332 on: August 05, 2019, 10:59:10 AM »
LOL.  A moment ago you denied they were derived at all!
Um, no? Not at all?
Again, my objection is you saying that 'mass exerts a gravitational force' was somehow derived by Einstein. he did not derive that, he took it as a premise. That's what I said. That's what I've been saying a ridiculous number of times. Don't accuse me of not understanding when you aren't grasping that and when you need to outright lie about what I said.

No, I’ve been saying that he derived his field equations from Newton’s gravitation, which uses mass, so the property of mass is fundamentally built into the whole thing.

If we got our wires crossed on that, it goes both ways.  This comment of yours, was not entirely clear.

Quote
Again, he did not derive it, he assumed it.

I apologize for my part of the misunderstanding, but I did not deliberately lie about what you said.

Quote
Quote
If you don’t use the fundamental property of mass, his equations are not valid.  Substituting another property is a contradiction.  Do you understand this yet?
And his equations are valid when that property of mass does hold, but when it does not, then only the select few that mention mass become invalid. Yep. I agree, I've always agreed, none of that precludes only some masses exerting gravity. So, again, why does that matter?

Because if we switch the property of mass to something else, we’re not starting from Newton’s gravity, but from something else, (say electromagnetic attraction). So we’ll end up with a different equation.  That’s been my basic point, that we can’t just substitute one thing for another and expect the equations to work.

You keep talking about a particular property of mass, which is very confusing.  Do you mean some unknown property of matter?

I’m talking about mass, the basic unit quantity. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #333 on: August 05, 2019, 11:15:12 AM »
You keep talking about a particular property of mass, which is very confusing.  Do you mean some unknown property of matter?

Iím talking about mass, the basic unit quantity.
How is it confusing? We're talking about FET, not everything is going to be the exact same between models, and like I've been saying several times over, the general idea behind celestial gravitation is that mass does not always exert a gravitational force; this is unproven, certainly, but equally it has only been assumed that it is not the case. When it does, you can take m as per normal in Einstein's equations. When it does not, then most of SR and such is going to still function just fine, but when you get to GR then the specifically gravitational bits will fail. Like, seriously, what about this has merited so much barely-relevant debate?
We are still talking about mass as the factor in Einstein's equations, the same way we still talk about velocity between both Newton and SR. In specific situations, yes different behaviour dominates, but unless you're in those situations you don't really need to account for it.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15658
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #334 on: August 05, 2019, 11:34:49 AM »
My question stays:

If one denies gravity as "magic, because it acts at a distance", then how one accepts electrostatic forces and magnetic forces?
They also act at a distance.

On the other hand, pushing the key on keyboard with your finger also acts at a distance.
The only difference is that the molecular distance between the key cap and your finger
is much shorter than between the balls in recreation of Cavendish experiment,
or between poles inside electric motor,
or between leaves inside an electroscope.
Electromagnetism is communicated via photons.

Gravity has no such discovered 'particle'.

Can you support why gravity is a fundamental force? This is only one methodology in use today (and the past) and I haven't seen it been supported here, yet I see the term 'fundamental force' being thrown around like someone just opened up their high school physics text books for the first time.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 11:36:37 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #335 on: August 05, 2019, 01:48:12 PM »
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument.
Except plenty of FEers do do that. So I wouldn't call that a strawman.

Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism
I provided a mechanism. You dismissed it as magic.

A rational assumption would be one that makes use of deductive logic.
No, that would be a rational conclusion based upon deductive logic.

one which you cannot logically support.
You mean one which cannot be supported via logical deduction, which itself can only be supported via inductive reasoning.

Can you prove logical deduction works, rather than simply assuming it does? Remember, to do that you can't use it.

Using inductive reasoning doesn't make something irrational.

Incorrect. Logic is an internally self consistent system which includes deductive logic.
No, I was completely correct.
Something being internally self consistent is not proof that it works.
Deductive logic cannot be justified without something else to justify it.
So no, from a purely logical point of view NOTHING can be proven, as you first need to be able to prove that you can prove anything, which requires already proving that.
If you would like to disagree, feel free to prove you can use deductive reasoning, without just assuming you can.

A distortion which is communicated how?
Again, the exact same argument applies to every fundamental force.

I guess if it was a straw man, it did make you look arrogant and stupid. However, it was not. You just don't know what the word rational means.
No, it was a strawman. I know what rational means.
It does not require it to be propped up by deductive reasoning.
Something backed by inductive reasoning is rational as well.

Such as known gravitational anomalies.
What anomalies?
Just appealing to "known" ones doesn't show that any are known.
Can you provide a single example?

Perhaps this is fair. However, the incoherencies and falsifications of your model are well known to any that choose not to turn a blind eye to them.
You mean to those that want to invent them.
Meanwhile the ones present in FE are known to anyone that spent more than 5 minutes honestly, and rationally thinking about it.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #336 on: August 05, 2019, 02:02:25 PM »
Saying its a fundamental force and hand waving doesn't do either side any favors.
It points out that it is a fundamental aspect of reality, just like the other fundamental forces.
Rejecting gravity, but not other forces like the electromagnetism shows you are simply cherry picking what you want to discard.

As you likely know, Dark Energy causes the earth to accelerate. And it does so in a much more reasonable way than the magical round earth "dark energy."
No, it does so in an extremely unreasonable way as it has significant anisotropy.

The mainstream dark energy acts in all directions equally as expanding space.
No one will feel the force of dark energy accelerating them. Instead it is observed in an increase in the distance between 2 objects.

Meanwhile, your idea of dark energy for the UA is to accelerate Earth in a particular direction for no apparent reason (note: it is the directionality I am pointing out has no justification here), as well as the objects significantly above Earth, accelerating them at the same rate, in the same direction, but then not the objects just above Earth.

It has not been observed between any two masses. That is an outright lie.
No it isn't, that is again a misrepresentation of what I have said.
All tests for gravity between 2 masses, which is actually capable of detecting that force, has.

You are trying to bundle up the moving planets in your model which seem to work at a distance squared, and the fact things fall. These are of course two separate phenomena and you have done absolutely nothing to show otherwise.
It is your assertion that they are 2 separate phenomena.
The moving planets accelerating at a rate inversely proportional to the distance squared, rather than based upon the properties of the planets matches quite well with objects on Earth falling, which when you remove factors such as drag and buoyancy, accelerate the same regardless of the properties of the materials shows they are almost certainly connected.
Especially considering we have also put satellites in orbit around Earth, which also accelerate around Earth not based upon the properties of the satellite.

If its a fundamental force, what is its carrier? How can we directly observe it, without presuming its existence?
How can you directly observe any force?

It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
No, objecting to a particular of RE which you deem to be magic doesn't mean that FE relies upon less magic.
You need to focus on all the "magic" that each side has.
You still have the same kind of magic, but even more magical, with the highly directional (magic) highly selective (magic) universal accelerator.
So on that point alone, you have more magic.
But then as you have discarded gravity, you then need to appeal to more magic to explain how the celestial objects appear to move.
Then you need to throw in more magic to explain their apparent position which simply doesn't work for a FE without light magically bending to make it look just like it should for a RE.
Then you need to throw in more magic to explain what RE attributes to the rotation of Earth, happening on Earth, such as the rotation of large scale weather systems, Foucault's pendulum and laser ring gyroscopes.
Then you need some more to explain how satellites are faked, including satellite based GPS and TV.
Then you need some more to explain how distance works.

So no, even if you want to say RE relies upon magic to explain the expansion of the universe, FE still relies upon far more magic.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15658
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #337 on: August 05, 2019, 04:12:36 PM »
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument.
Except plenty of FEers do do that. So I wouldn't call that a strawman.
How does a great number of any type of person taking upon a logical fallacy make it not a logical fallacy? That in itself is a fallacy. So you have now justified one fallacy by bringing on board another. If you were on an intellectual boat, you'd be desperately pouring bucket by bucket out rather than plugging the hole first.

Quote
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism
I provided a mechanism. You dismissed it as magic.
I must have missed it. How again does it cause space to curve? Also, I'd still love to know why you think science deals in such matters, when its clear it doesn't.

Quote
A rational assumption would be one that makes use of deductive logic.
No, that would be a rational conclusion based upon deductive logic.
Inductive logic is informal logic, and empirical thought embraces that.

Deductive logic is formally valid logic, and rationalism embraces that.

It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is rational.

You are either completely ignorant of what you speak of, or are purposefully being difficult. A rational conclusion, clearly by definition, is one based off deductive logic. If you are widening this definition to include informal logic, you are doing so by the blessing of those you are arguing against or showing it to be the case.

We give no such blessing of ignorance.

One of these two types of logical is formally valid, the other when attempted to prove it leads to infinite regression. They also behave differently.

Quote
one which you cannot logically support.
You mean one which cannot be supported via logical deduction, which itself can only be supported via inductive reasoning.
No I mean what I said. There is no known way to support inductive reasoning logically as shown by Popper, Hume, and countless others. You cannot support inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning as this just introduces yet another layer that must be justified by yet another inductive principle, which then has to be justified and so on ad infinitum.

More than this, one can disprove inductive reasoning quite easily in every day life, by example.

Quote

Can you prove logical deduction works, rather than simply assuming it does? Remember, to do that you can't use it.
Can you provide justification for your bold claim that I can't use deductive logic to prove deductive logic?

Quote
Using inductive reasoning doesn't make something irrational.
It does and I have shown, or at least cited, why.

Quote
Incorrect. Logic is an internally self consistent system which includes deductive logic.
No, I was completely correct.
Something being internally self consistent is not proof that it works.
Deductive logic cannot be justified without something else to justify it.
So no, from a purely logical point of view NOTHING can be proven, as you first need to be able to prove that you can prove anything, which requires already proving that.
If you would like to disagree, feel free to prove you can use deductive reasoning, without just assuming you can.
And now you are begging the question. I'm not sure you should really be a "voice of reason" if you make use of such fallacies at such a whim.

Quote
A distortion which is communicated how?
Again, the exact same argument applies to every fundamental force.
No it isn't. Have you ever heard of photons? Do you even know what the fundamental forces are?

Quote
I guess if it was a straw man, it did make you look arrogant and stupid. However, it was not. You just don't know what the word rational means.
No, it was a strawman. I know what rational means.
It does not require it to be propped up by deductive reasoning.
Something backed by inductive reasoning is rational as well.
Not in the way the big boys are talking about. If you wish to try to use a minced layman definition of a word to try to prove your point, you are welcome to make yourself a fool.

Quote
Such as known gravitational anomalies.
What anomalies?
Just appealing to "known" ones doesn't show that any are known.
Can you provide a single example?
They are known well enough, and have been talked to here so many times I properly assumed them to be fair game. Just like I won't cite that the sky is blue, I refuse to accept you believe or wish to lay your argument upon the flimsy grounds that there are no examples.

I apologize for my use of the term "gravitational anomaly" rather than "gravity anomaly" if that is what you are harping on.

Quote
Perhaps this is fair. However, the incoherencies and falsifications of your model are well known to any that choose not to turn a blind eye to them.
You mean to those that want to invent them.
Meanwhile the ones present in FE are known to anyone that spent more than 5 minutes honestly, and rationally thinking about it.
No, they are well known to those actually working in the field that believe in a round earth.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Macarios

  • 1730
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #338 on: August 05, 2019, 08:05:58 PM »
My question stays:

If one denies gravity as "magic, because it acts at a distance", then how one accepts electrostatic forces and magnetic forces?
They also act at a distance.

On the other hand, pushing the key on keyboard with your finger also acts at a distance.
The only difference is that the molecular distance between the key cap and your finger
is much shorter than between the balls in recreation of Cavendish experiment,
or between poles inside electric motor,
or between leaves inside an electroscope.
Electromagnetism is communicated via photons.

Gravity has no such discovered 'particle'.

Can you support why gravity is a fundamental force? This is only one methodology in use today (and the past) and I haven't seen it been supported here, yet I see the term 'fundamental force' being thrown around like someone just opened up their high school physics text books for the first time.

Saved by the bell photon. :)

Do you know what photons really are and why they say that light is dualistic in nature?

Please tell us how "chain of photons" can drag two magnetic pieces towards each other.

Or two charged particles?
If they are both positive then "stream of photons" push them away from each other?
If they are one positive and one negative, then "stream of photons" goes behind them and pushes them towards each other?

Photon is quantum of energy that can act as a particle in certain conditions.
You can find some similarity in ball lightning, but not much.

Or some vague analogy with smoke ring:

I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #339 on: August 06, 2019, 03:25:03 AM »
How does a great number of any type of person taking upon a logical fallacy make it not a logical fallacy?
I never said it didn't.
My point was a lot of FEers reject gravity, replace it with UA and then still appeal to gravity in the form of celestial gravity.
So it isn't a strawman.
The only part that comes close is the ending where they say they can't use it as it would make Earth a sphere.

I must have missed it. How again does it cause space to curve?
So you are asking for a mechanism for the mechanism.

Inductive logic is informal logic, and empirical thought embraces that.
And that doesn't make it irrational.
It is still a form of reasoning, and thus something being backed up by it is still rational.

It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is rational.
No, you have it the wrong way around.
It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is irrational.

You are yet to provide any justification for that.

You are either completely ignorant of what you speak of, or are purposefully being difficult.
Good job projecting.

A rational conclusion
Again, I said a rational assumption, not conclusion.

is one based off deductive logic.
No, that would be a deductive conclusion.
There is nothing in the definition of rational which requires it to use deductive reasoning.

One of these two types of logical is formally valid, the other when attempted to prove it leads to infinite regression.
Again, care to provide a proof that deductive reasoning works, without the same infinite regress?

Can you provide justification for your bold claim that I can't use deductive logic to prove deductive logic?
Because that is circular reasoning.
You are assuming deductive logic works to try and prove deductive logic works.

That is no better than using inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning works.

So do you have any proof that deductive reasoning works, without first assuming it does?

Quite the double standard you have.
You reject justifying inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning but are happy to do so for deductive reasoning.
Why?

It does and I have shown, or at least cited, why.
No, you have just asserted it and tried to equate rational to based upon deductive reasoning.

And now you are begging the question.
Not in the slightest.
I am merely pointing out that if you honest followed what you preached you would accept nothing as proven and know that nothing can be proven (including that nothing can be proven), and as such wouldn't even bring it up as a point in an argument.

No it isn't. Have you ever heard of photons?
Yes I have.
How are photons generated?
A nice simple case of an electron being moved from point A to point B, just once.
How does in generate photons to affect the electromagnetic field?
What is the mechanism behind it?
How does this photon then cause other charges to move?
Again, the same, or equivalent, questions apply to the other fundamental forces as well.

They are known well enough
The ones where they are just anomolies from a simple model based upon incomplete information rather than a contradiction of the model are well known.
For example, a variation in the gravity of Earth from what is predicted from a simple ellipsoid.
But you made it clear that is not what you were talking about.
The only thing which comes close to that is galactic rotation curves, but you said it was here on Earth, so that rules that out.

So just what anomalies are you talking about?

Just like I won't cite that the sky is blue
That is vastly different to an alleged gravitational anomaly.
Everyone can go outside on a near daily basis and observe that the sky appears to be blue.
They cannot do this for gravitational anomalies.
It would be more akin to citing that the average distance between the sun and Earth is a particular value.

I apologize for my use of the term "gravitational anomaly" rather than "gravity anomaly" if that is what you are harping on.
So you didn't even bother reading past the first line?
Quote
Typically the model is based on simplifying assumptions, such as that, under its self-gravitation and rotational motion, the planet assumes the figure of an ellipsoid of revolution. Gravity on the surface of this ellipsoid is then given by a simple formula which only contains the latitude, and subtraction from observed gravity in the same location will yield the gravity anomaly.
So just like I said, a variation from a simple model with no indication it lies outside the uncertainty range as it does not include the distribution of all the mass in the object.

If you have an example of an actual gravitational anomaly on Earth, where the prediction of gravity is actually wrong, rather than a simplified prediction being wrong, feel free to provide it.
Until then I see no reason to foolishly accept it.

No, they are well known to those actually working in the field that believe in a round earth.
Again, any justification?
Or is this again just focusing on the simplifications of the model?

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #340 on: August 06, 2019, 10:30:56 AM »
You keep talking about a particular property of mass, which is very confusing.  Do you mean some unknown property of matter?

Iím talking about mass, the basic unit quantity.
How is it confusing?  We're talking about FET, not everything is going to be the exact same between models, and like I've been saying several times over, the general idea behind celestial gravitation is that mass does not always exert a gravitational force;

Yes, thank you.  I get that.

Itís confusing because you seem unwilling to clarify if you are talking about different types of matter or different types of mass.  Itís an important distinction, because matter has many properties, one of which being mass.

As mass is such a fundamental property, having different types would be kind of a big deal.

Quote
this is unproven, certainly, but equally it has only been assumed that it is not the case.

Seriously?  Thereís nothing equal between the two.

Quote
When it does, you can take m as per normal in Einstein's equations. When it does not, then most of SR and such is going to still function just fine, but when you get to GR then the specifically gravitational bits will fail.

If you can take a stab about what the differences are between your different ďmassesĒ, then we can look into how ďnormalĒ things might work. 

Quote
Like, seriously, what about this has merited so much barely-relevant debate?

Have you asked yourself the same question?  Weíre both debating, but only one of us is complaining that we are debating. 

Iím curious how you think this might be made to work.  You donít have to reply if you donít want to.

Quote
We are still talking about mass as the factor in Einstein's equations, the same way we still talk about velocity between both Newton and SR. In specific situations, yes different behaviour dominates, but unless you're in those situations you don't really need to account for it.

Oh, no.  That is totally different.

Special relativity incorporates  Newtonian mechanics.  We can talk about relativistic velocity and non relativistic velocity, but that just distinguishes whether the effect is significant or not.  Plug the numbers into the equations and see what effect it has. 

Velocity is just distance over time.  There arenít different types of velocity to choose between in appling special relativity.  Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #341 on: August 06, 2019, 11:02:28 AM »
Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.
I seriously don't get what your issue is. The idea that the equations governing relativity are basically just a simplified version of an as-yet unknown, more complex but more encompassing system of equations is about as far from a niche, hardline FE-conspiracy theorist claim as you could possibly get. I'm not 'complaining we're debating,' I'm just baffled why you spent so long objecting to this without bothering to give an actual reason why.

As far as properties of mass/properties of matter, that's getting into borderline semantic territory. Some have it so that only some mass exerts gravity, so while the force depends on mass, it is not synonymous with mass but that does get lumped in with what element it is (hence why lead exerts it for Cavendish, for example), the more developed tend to have it be an interaction of mass, so that mass will act different when subject to certain specific situations. I've seen it go a few ways if you actually want to discuss it, but none of that is actually relevant to the points you've made so far as Einstein's equations would remain basically a limiting case, the same way Newton is essentially a limiting case for Einstein; when the change in velocity is small, relativistic velocity addition basically simplifies to Newtonian. Equally, when the effect of the electric field is small/the element is the right one/the torsion of subquark strings is in the right direction, it simplifies to basic attractive gravity.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #342 on: August 06, 2019, 03:18:25 PM »
Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.
I seriously don't get what your issue is. The idea that the equations governing relativity are basically just a simplified version of an as-yet unknown, more complex but more encompassing system of equations is about as far from a niche, hardline FE-conspiracy theorist claim as you could possibly get. I'm not 'complaining we're debating,' I'm just baffled why you spent so long objecting to this without bothering to give an actual reason why.

As far as properties of mass/properties of matter, that's getting into borderline semantic territory. Some have it so that only some mass exerts gravity, so while the force depends on mass, it is not synonymous with mass but that does get lumped in with what element it is (hence why lead exerts it for Cavendish, for example), the more developed tend to have it be an interaction of mass, so that mass will act different when subject to certain specific situations. I've seen it go a few ways if you actually want to discuss it, but none of that is actually relevant to the points you've made so far as Einstein's equations would remain basically a limiting case, the same way Newton is essentially a limiting case for Einstein; when the change in velocity is small, relativistic velocity addition basically simplifies to Newtonian. Equally, when the effect of the electric field is small/the element is the right one/the torsion of subquark strings is in the right direction, it simplifies to basic attractive gravity.
  • The Flat Earth Society's Universal Acceleration is stated to rely on Einstein's Equivalence Principle.
  • Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that Gravitational mass is identical to Inertial Mass.
  • Therefore all Inertial Mass is Gravitational Mass.
  • All mass is Inertial Mass because that is one definition of mass.
  • You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass.
  • Earthly mass is Inertial Mass otherwise it would not be mass.
  • Therefore Earthly mass is also Gravitational Mass.
  • Hence to be consistent the Earth should also exert gravitational.
Therefore The Flat Earth Society in inconsistent in using Einstein's Equivalence Principle to support Universal Acceleration.
But they are inconsistent about many things, so who Cares?

All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!

Now, go jump in the lake!


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #343 on: August 06, 2019, 03:57:34 PM »
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated. The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
You're the one that feels the need to lie to defend a completely irrelevant claim, and resurrect it as part of a different discussion being had with a different user, but whatever.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #344 on: August 06, 2019, 04:25:24 PM »
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated.
What is the difference?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #345 on: August 06, 2019, 04:35:34 PM »
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated.
What is the difference?
The source of the force. Do you have a point?

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #346 on: August 06, 2019, 06:14:53 PM »
All for the life of me I cannot understand why you go on and on about such a trivial matter but, I guess, that's what you do!
Uh. It states that you can't tell the difference between being affected by gravity or being accelerated.
What is the difference?
The source of the force. Do you have a point?
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
  • The Flat Earth Society's Universal Acceleration is stated to rely on Einstein's Equivalence Principle.
  • Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that Gravitational mass is identical to Inertial Mass.
  • Therefore all Inertial Mass is Gravitational Mass.
  • All mass is Inertial Mass because that is one definition of mass.
  • You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass.
  • Earthly mass is Inertial Mass otherwise it would not be mass.
  • Therefore Earthly mass is also Gravitational Mass.
  • Hence to be consistent the Earth should also exert gravitational.
Therefore The Flat Earth Society in inconsistent in using Einstein's Equivalence Principle to support Universal Acceleration.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #347 on: August 07, 2019, 04:27:56 AM »
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.

So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #348 on: August 07, 2019, 05:54:34 AM »
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.
What semantic trickery where I swap definitions in step 5?
What is invalid about "You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass."

I repeat! Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #349 on: August 07, 2019, 06:11:29 AM »
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.
What semantic trickery where I swap definitions in step 5?
What is invalid about "You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass."

I repeat! Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The bit where start saying that EEP gives a damn what the source of gravity is. Nothing about the Equivalence Principle cares whether mass is the cause of gravity. Absolutely nothing. You refusing to even acknowledge that is pathetic even by your standards. Mass is a measure of resistance to acceleration; the EEP states that the resistance to acceleration caused by inertia, and by gravity, are identical. You flip-flopping to say it's talking about mass exerting gravity rather than mass subject to it remains as rubbish as it was the first time you said it. Not that I expect you to even acknowledge me saying that this time given you ignore it even when you quote it. Jesus christ.

I pointed out your lie. Repeating the question won't change the answer. If you aren't swapping definitions, then your step one is: "Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that mass that exerts gravity is identical to Inertial Mass."
Please. Tell me how that follows from it. I've aksed you that so many times before, I wonder if you'll even bother answering this time.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #350 on: August 07, 2019, 08:17:07 AM »
Yet this is what you are proposing to do with mass in general relativity.  Which is why I ask for clarification.
I seriously don't get what your issue is. The idea that the equations governing relativity are basically just a simplified version of an as-yet unknown, more complex but more encompassing system of equations is about as far from a niche, hardline FE-conspiracy theorist claim as you could possibly get. I'm not 'complaining we're debating,' I'm just baffled why you spent so long objecting to this without bothering to give an actual reason why.

As far as properties of mass/properties of matter, that's getting into borderline semantic territory. Some have it so that only some mass exerts gravity, so while the force depends on mass, it is not synonymous with mass but that does get lumped in with what element it is (hence why lead exerts it for Cavendish, for example), the more developed tend to have it be an interaction of mass, so that mass will act different when subject to certain specific situations. I've seen it go a few ways if you actually want to discuss it, but none of that is actually relevant to the points you've made so far as Einstein's equations would remain basically a limiting case, the same way Newton is essentially a limiting case for Einstein; when the change in velocity is small, relativistic velocity addition basically simplifies to Newtonian. Equally, when the effect of the electric field is small/the element is the right one/the torsion of subquark strings is in the right direction, it simplifies to basic attractive gravity.

My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einsteinís equations for General Relativity sectively, when you donít even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you canít even define the basic parameters you want to use?

Itís particularly weird, because you want to apply it to both celestial gravitation and lead balls (in the Cavendish experiment), but not other Earthly masses.  Lead, dug out of the ground, seems pretty Earthly to me (other materials have also been used, btw).  So Iím guessing thereís nothing particularly exotic about ďcelestial gravitationĒ?

The REALLY big thing though, which I mentioned earlier and you didnít address, is that in Einsteinís field equations mass affects spacetime snd spacetime affects mass.  Itís a two way interaction.  You can run the equations in both directions.

You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so itís fundamentally different.

More generally, my issue is with trying to shoehorn Einsteinís work into flat earth ideas, without grounds.  Thereís no theoretical justification for this, nor one single tiny scrap of evidence to back it up. 

You think you can just say that thereís more complex equations that simplify down to gravitation under some circumstances.  Yet you donít have the first clue what those higher equations might be.  So how can you possibly assert how they simplify?  Itís just total bullshit.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #351 on: August 07, 2019, 08:32:27 AM »
My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einsteinís equations for General Relativity sectively, when you donít even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you canít even define the basic parameters you want to use?
The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture. We already know it works fine in certain conditions, and that gets conceded by people who'd argue in this direction. Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?
Like, what you're arguing is that despite all the experiments and tests, we should reject Einstein's equations in totality just because there are super-niche circumstances where they might not hold. This isn't an FE-only position, it's basically the mainstream point of view, and your argument is that incomplete=wrong. That's just silly. Nothing about what I'm saying, beyond the one specific application which is irrelevant to most of your response, is outside of accepted scientific fact. Relativity does not explain everything, scientists are trying to combine it with quantum theory etc, they don't yet have the final formula but that doesn't mean quantum theory and relativity are inherently wrong. That just doesn't make sense. We know they're not for separate reasons.

Quote
You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so itís fundamentally different.
And still simplifies. Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity. How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you? Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth? Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion? Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
Yes, it is different. No one's saying it isn't different. I didn't address that when you said it before because there's really nothing to address, it doesn't matter. Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then. Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case, but that's not an argument. You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #352 on: August 08, 2019, 03:05:42 AM »
My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einstein’s equations for General Relativity sectively, when you don’t even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you can’t even define the basic parameters you want to use?
The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture. We already know it works fine in certain conditions, and that gets conceded by people who'd argue in this direction.

By “we”, I assume you mean everyone bar most flat earthers. “Conceded” is hardly the word I’d use.

Quote
Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?

Of course not.  But as you feel the need to keep reminding me, things have to be different for a flat earth UA model.

So what observational evidence for gravitation in real science do you need to incorporate into the gravitational part of the UA model?

1.  That things fall down?  Obviously not, the primary cause for that is allegedly UA.  But you do want a small adjustment to the value.  Somehow.

2.  Newton’s original evidence of the orbits of moons around planets, and planets around the sun?   Nope.

3.  The orbital mechanics of artificial satellites and spacecraft?  No.  They either don’t exist or have to be very different.

4.  Gravitational lensing around massive objects, such as an 860 000 mile diameter sun 93 million miles away?  Oh, hell no.  Small sun, doing weird spirals, remember?

5.  The Cavendish Experiment?  OK, you want that.

6.  UA doesn’t even agree with what most astronomical observations even are. 

7.  You might want to use “celestial gravitation” to explain the apparent motion of stars, via something like “celestial gears”, but that looks nothing like either Newtonian gravity or GR. And let’s be honest isn’t what anyone sees anyway.

So your basic starting position looks nothing like GR anyway.  I’m not even sure why you’d want to include it?  It looks a lot like trying to just use Einstein’s name to add faux credibility to the argument.

Quote
Like, what you're arguing is that despite all the experiments and tests, we should reject Einstein's equations in totality just because there are super-niche circumstances where they might not hold.  This isn't an FE-only position, it's basically the mainstream point of view, and your argument is that incomplete=wrong. That's just silly.

No, I’m not.  When did I say that? 

Einstein actually had equations that showed how they incorporated Newtonian gravity, and then we got evidence to verify them.  Like Newton, he actually did the work.

The woolly ideas of flat earthers have no equations and so far are contrary to the available evidence.

Quote
Nothing about what I'm saying, beyond the one specific application which is irrelevant to most of your response, is outside of accepted scientific fact.

Except your attempt to shoehorn it into entirely unscientific flat earth models.

Quote
Relativity does not explain everything, scientists are trying to combine it with quantum theory etc, they don't yet have the final formula but that doesn't mean quantum theory and relativity are inherently wrong. That just doesn't make sense. We know they're not for separate reasons.

Just because real scientists are trying to find a theory for quantum gravity (and they may never succeed), does not mean you can assume Einstein’s equations can neatly fit into whatever you want.  It has to be demonstrated.

Quote
Quote
You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so it’s fundamentally different.
And still simplifies. Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity. How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you? Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth? Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion? Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
Yes, it is different. No one's saying it isn't different. I didn't address that when you said it before because there's really nothing to address, it doesn't matter. Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then. Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case, but that's not an argument. You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.

Of course it’s a problem.  But having a problem does not necessarily mean saying there is no possible solution.  Solving problems is what science is all about.

But you just assert that general relativity can be made to fit into flat earth ideas with the flimsiest of arguments.  You say things like “it doesn’t matter” in the place where the work should be.

Especially considering my earlier part about what observations and evidence you actually need to fit it to, it makes little sense to even try to incorporate general relativity.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 03:12:41 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #353 on: August 08, 2019, 03:40:35 AM »
"Photons cause electromagnetism"

Ha LOL. That's hilarious. Actually try learning quantum mechanics, you'll find out that's not the case at all.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #354 on: August 08, 2019, 04:20:40 AM »
By ďweĒ, I assume you mean everyone bar most flat earthers. ďConcededĒ is hardly the word Iíd use.
No, I mean FEers, the ones that would actually argue down this line based on the 'gravity does exist, but isn't universal' approach. Thinking I mean the exact opposite of what I explicitly said might be your problem.

Quote
Quote
Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?

Of course not.  But as you feel the need to keep reminding me, things have to be different for a flat earth UA model.

So what observational evidence for gravitation in real science do you need to incorporate into the gravitational part of the UA model?
Well that's a misrepresentation if I ever saw one. We're talking GR, not gravity. Even if we'd never observed orbits, space travel, gravitational waves... we've had plenty of experimental verification of relativity. Hafele-Keating's the classic. Yes, relativity has knock-on effects used to explain other observations, but those aren't what matter, Newton had an answer to them even if it wasn't complete, and given it's still not complete after Einstein it's a bit weird to insist on tying it to relativity. The concept of mass exerting gravity is not Einstein's. He formalised the mathematical effect of it, but that was only by looking at it through the lens of applying SR to acceleration via the EEP. Our current understanding of gravity is just an application of the actual process of GR, and that's what we have solid evidence of.


Quote
Of course itís a problem.  But having a problem does not necessarily mean saying there is no possible solution.  Solving problems is what science is all about.

But you just assert that general relativity can be made to fit into flat earth ideas with the flimsiest of arguments.  You say things like ďit doesnít matterĒ in the place where the work should be.
So your argument is 'it's incomplete, like everything.' You haven't given contradictions, incongruities, you've just given bits that could be fleshed out but still make sense. Kinda worthless for this thread.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #355 on: August 08, 2019, 04:41:57 AM »
Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The amount of twisting and wordplay you have to do to somehow turn that into 'all mass exerts gravity' beggars belief. It makes no claims about where gravity comes from. It just doesn't. See if you can spot the semantic trickery where you swap definitions in step 5.
So you really are just back to the 'make one irrelevant post and hope people forget the lie' tactic again? Jesus christ.
What semantic trickery where I swap definitions in step 5?
What is invalid about "You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass."

I repeat! Please point out which of the following points is incorrect.
The bit where start saying that EEP gives a damn what the source of gravity is. Nothing about the Equivalence Principle cares whether mass is the cause of gravity.
Where did I claim that EEP even mentions the "source of gravity"?
All I quoted about the EEP is exactly what is given as the definition of the EEP! "Inertial mass is identical to Gravitational  mass".

So, I repeat , please point out which of the following njmbered points is incorrect and why.
  • The Flat Earth Society's Universal Acceleration is stated to rely on Einstein's Equivalence Principle.
  • Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that Gravitational mass is identical to Inertial Mass.
  • Therefore all Inertial Mass is Gravitational Mass.
  • All mass is Inertial Mass because that is one definition of mass.
  • You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass.
  • Earthly mass is Inertial Mass otherwise it would not be mass.
  • Therefore Earthly mass is also Gravitational Mass.
  • Hence to be consistent the Earth should also exert gravitational.
Surely you cannot object to "Celestial mass exerts gravitation and is therefore Gravitational Mass"!
If a "mass exerts gravitation" it must be a "Gravitational Mass", otherwise the words have no meaning.

Maybe I could reword (5) as:
"5) You and The Flat Earth Society claim that some mass, vis Celestial mass exerts gravitation. Hence I claim that Celestial mass must be Gravitational Mass".

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #356 on: August 08, 2019, 05:01:16 AM »
Where did I claim that EEP even mentions the "source of gravity"?
...
If a "mass exerts gravitation" it must be a "Gravitational Mass", otherwise the words have no meaning.
This is just pathetic even by your standards. Like I said, semantic trickery and outright lies.
The words have plenty of meaning. It means 'mass subject to gravity' in the context in which you first use it, as has already been pointed out to you and as you full well know, but then you conveniently change it to 'mass exerting gravity' with no explanation and the frantic hope I'm just going to get bored of calling you out.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #357 on: August 08, 2019, 05:50:22 AM »
By “we”, I assume you mean everyone bar most flat earthers. “Conceded” is hardly the word I’d use.
No, I mean FEers, the ones that would actually argue down this line based on the 'gravity does exist, but isn't universal' approach. Thinking I mean the exact opposite of what I explicitly said might be your problem.

Or you could be clearer about who “we” refers to.  Especially when preceded by something like “The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture.”, which appears to mean people in general.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?

Of course not.  But as you feel the need to keep reminding me, things have to be different for a flat earth UA model.

So what observational evidence for gravitation in real science do you need to incorporate into the gravitational part of the UA model?

Well that's a misrepresentation if I ever saw one.

Yes, you clearly misrepresented my argument.

Quote
We're talking GR, not gravity.

Say what now?  General relativity is the geometric theory of gravity, derived from special relativity and Newton’s law of gravitation.  How can we talk about general relativity without talking about gravity?

Quote
Even if we'd never observed orbits, space travel, gravitational waves... we've had plenty of experimental verification of relativity. Hafele-Keating's the classic.

Hafele-Keating verifies relativity in two ways.

1.  Time dilation due to velocity, which is a prediction of special relativity.

2.  Time dilation due to gravity.  The EARTH’s gravity.  Under the UA flat earth model, the earth doesn’t have much of gravitational field, remember?  You really want to use this experiment to support UA?

Quote
Yes, relativity has knock-on effects used to explain other observations, but those aren't what matter, Newton had an answer to them even if it wasn't complete, and given it's still not complete after Einstein it's a bit weird to insist on tying it to relativity.

I listed things that are accounted for in general relativity.  Most were also accounted for by Newton.  So what?

The point was what do flat earthers want to use.  I’m pretty damn sure they don’t want to use Newton’s law of gravitation, where mass always attracts mass.  So obviously it matters.

Quote
The concept of mass exerting gravity is not Einstein's. He formalised the mathematical effect of it, but that was only by looking at it through the lens of applying SR to acceleration via the EEP. Our current understanding of gravity is just an application of the actual process of GR, and that's what we have solid evidence of.

Yeah, but it’s what flat earthers don’t want to use, particularly under the UA model.

Why are you appealing to the differences between Newton and Einstein’s theories to defend a model that basically states they were both wrong?

Quote
Quote
Of course it’s a problem.  But having a problem does not necessarily mean saying there is no possible solution.  Solving problems is what science is all about.

But you just assert that general relativity can be made to fit into flat earth ideas with the flimsiest of arguments.  You say things like “it doesn’t matter” in the place where the work should be.
So your argument is 'it's incomplete, like everything.' You haven't given contradictions, incongruities, you've just given bits that could be fleshed out but still make sense. Kinda worthless for this thread.

I listed a whole load of contradictions.  Observations of gravitation that shouldn’t apply to flat earth ideas of universal acceleration, but you didn’t address any of them.

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  They don’t matter, right?

Fail.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 06:01:00 AM by Unconvinced »

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #358 on: August 08, 2019, 05:58:26 AM »
Where did I claim that EEP even mentions the "source of gravity"?
...
If a "mass exerts gravitation" it must be a "Gravitational Mass", otherwise the words have no meaning.
This is just pathetic even by your standards. Like I said, semantic trickery and outright lies.
What is this "semantic trickery"? I have never anywhere intended any such thing!

And, watch your tongue, thank you, you don't get to call someone a liar just because they disagree with you!

Quote from: Jane
The words have plenty of meaning. It means 'mass subject to gravity' in the context in which you first use it, as has already been pointed out to you and as you full well know, but then you conveniently change it to 'mass exerting gravity' with no explanation and the frantic hope I'm just going to get bored of calling you out.
Surely 'mass subject to gravity' is a 'gravitational mass' and a 'mass exerting gravity' is also a 'gravitational mass' so why the fuss?
Why are you such an obnoxious creature that you think that everyone is out to trick you - I honestly have been trying to explain it as well as possible.

But every time I try to explain it a little differently you accuse me of "semantic trickery and outright lies"!

I guess that you are nothing like Albert Einstein who said 'The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.'
You think that you know everything right now!
And unlike Oscar Wilde who said "I am not young enough to know everything" you are "young enough to know everything"!

« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 02:23:43 PM by rabinoz »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #359 on: August 08, 2019, 06:23:45 AM »
And, watch your tongue, thank you, you don't get to call someone a liar just because they disagree with you!
I'm calling you a liar because you are lying. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are ignoring anything that dares contradict you no matter how blatant and frankly I'm sick of it. Your words: "Surely 'mass subject to gravity' is a 'gravitational mass' and a 'mass exerting gravity' is also a 'gravitational mass' so why the fuss?" Straight-up, admitted semantic trickery, switching between definitions to get a completely different end result that doesn't follow under any semblance of logic whatsoever, you admit it and you just don't care. If you don't want to get called a liar, at least try not to make the deceit quite so obvious.
Here's a hint: if you can't make your argument work with just the one definition, it's a bad argument, switching out is what's called 'dishonesty.' Not that I believe for one second that you actually need that explained to you.



Or you could be clearer about who ďweĒ refers to.  Especially when preceded by something like ďThe same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture.Ē, which appears to mean people in general.
Yes, well obviously people in general, I was calling out you excluding FEers from consideration for no clear reason.

Quote
Hafele-Keating verifies relativity in two ways.
Leaving aside the fact you seem to have forgotten the whole reason why the Equivalence Principle gets mentioned in explanations of UA, that's the point. We have observations that tell us relativity makes accurate predictions. Rejecting it just because we don't have a 100% framework of the world is silly. That's not an FE perspective, that's just regular science.

Quote
The point was what do flat earthers want to use.  Iím pretty damn sure they donít want to use Newtonís law of gravitation, where mass always attracts mass.  So obviously it matters.
You do realise that this entire conversation has been about FEers who accept that in certain circumstances don't you? Again, just a refinement where there are a couple of other factors, but it's not 'Einstein was wrong!!!!' any more than Einstein proved Newton was wrong. It's "This is a limiting case, relevant in certain situations and approximately accurate in the day-to-day."

Quote
I listed a whole load of contradictions.  Observations of gravitation that shouldnít apply to flat earth ideas of universal acceleration, but you didnít address any of them.

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  They donít matter, right?
Uh, what? You haven't provided contradictions, you've just objected that they can explain it because they do so without a 100% fleshed out model. That's not a contradiction. That's just science. Some FEers do accept gravity, they just don't think all masses exert it, and that answers everything you've proposed that even approaches the status of 'contradiction.' The rest was just you getting mad that they don't think GR is the 100% complete view of the world, and is instead only applicable in certain situations, as a limiting case of a more complex model. Which is... not a controversial opinion in any scientific circles whatsoever. Sure, they take a different way, but this really shouldn't be the hill you want to die on.