# Acceleration is not constant on Earth

• 453 Replies
• 17374 Views
?

#### Platonius21

• 371
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #390 on: August 15, 2019, 06:53:28 PM »
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?

?

#### MouseWalker

• 741
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #391 on: August 15, 2019, 06:53:40 PM »
where did you go Jane ?
Make an actual point and it'll be worth posting. You got into a discussion midway through without bothering reading any of the context and got surprised you were lost. Not really worth much response.
She ask the questions, and I responded to them, and she first dismissed it , and I rephrased, and Got silence.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

#### rabinoz

• 25665
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #392 on: August 15, 2019, 07:31:00 PM »
Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity,
Therefore, if you accept Einstein's Equivalence Principle, All "masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity" because:
• All masses are inertial masses - it's the definition of mass.

• Einstein's Equivalence Principle implies that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass
Let's see how Albert Einstein worded his "happiest thought":

From: THUS SPOKE EINSTEIN on LIFE and LIVING: Wisdom of Albert Einstein in the Context

Quote from: Slime
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.
All I'm arguing is that if you accept that if:
"Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity" (You said it, not I) and
you accept Einstein's Equivalence Principle then all "masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity".

Now, you and the FES are quite at liberty to postulate anything but that does not mean that either you or the FES can use Einstein's EEP to justify it.

You don't have to keep this charade going any longer!

?

#### JackBlack

• 12687
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #393 on: August 16, 2019, 02:18:16 AM »
I contend it is and you haven't shown otherwise.
And again with the double standard.
Why should you be allowed to make whatever claims you want without backing them up, yet you object when others do the same?

How do you justify that this applies to all mechanisms?
I have already done so above.
Any time a mechanism is provided you are providing an explanation which in turn relies upon something else. That something else can then have questions asked of it.

What sets apart inductive, deductive, abductive, and gut feeling reasoning?
With reasoning, you take in data about the situation, consciously think about it, typically considering several options/possibilities and come to conclusions/inferences. Gut feeling is just following what you feel without thinking about the data.

I don't have to prove deductive reasoning to be truth preserving.
If you want to claim that deductive reasoning works, especially with all your objects to the use of objective reasoning, then you need to show it does.
Sure, technically you don't. You can just assert whatever BS you want. You can pretend that magic pixie dust reasoning is the only reasoning that works, but sane people wont take you seriously.

Its in the fucking definition of valid deductive reasoning.
So you are just trying to define it into working?
So if I define inductive reasoning to include reasoning which preserves truth, you will happy accept that inductive reasoning is fine?

Again, one is infinitely more circular.
That literally makes no sense.
They are both circular, relying upon themselves to show they work.
Once you have made the circle, you have the circle, and there is no "infinitely more."
With one you have inductive reasoning works because inductive reasoning works.
The other has deductive reasoning works because deductive reasoning works.
With both, until you prove it works, you can't prove it works.

This is not true of inductive principles because they cannot be truth preserving and thus cannot validate each other assuming a set of axioms that are truthful.
All that is claiming is that you can't use deductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning. That doesn't make it any more circular.

Now, can you actually show deductive reasoning works, without first assuming it does?

I never did support being able to know anything at all.
You sure seem to support the idea that deductive reasoning works.

I can't validate the existence of mass bending space time, or its model without reaching a null result.
I can validate the existence of something that adheres to the model of photon.
Really?
And how do you do that?
How do you know you are detecting a photon, and not something else in the same way that you don't know that you are detecting the curvature of space time rather than a something else?

Like I said
No, you said that they showed gravity to be wrong. That they were inconsistencies and falsifications of the model, making it clear that you didn't just mean cases where we could not predict the value perfectly.
But now you have shown that that was not the case, that you were not talking any falsification or inconsistency and instead just limitations of the model due to limited knowledge.

See above; any chance on justifying inductive reasoning "works"
I will let you justify that deductive reasoning works first, actually justifying it, not just asserting it.

In Before:

Too late, you already moved them.
They were set at proving deductive reasoning works.
Instead of doing that you just attacked inductive reasoning.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #394 on: August 16, 2019, 03:35:35 AM »
Einstein's Equivalence Principle[/i] implies that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass
At any point are you going to listen to a word I say, or just keep spamming that blatant semantic trick?
You are conflating definitions. Yes, gravitational mass means 'mass that exerts a gravitational force.' That is not relevant to the EEP. It just isn't. I've asked you to show how it is before, and every single time you've evaded the question, so you might want to think about why that is. What the principle actually cares about is 'mass subject to a gravitational force.' That is gravitational mass in this context; again, the EEP tells us that the acceleration caused by gravity is no different to any other kind of acceleration. That's it. That's what the principle actually states. That's what that snippet means, that's what actually follows from Einstein's work and explanation.
You are trying to twist it so you can claim the EEP gives a damn about where gravity actually comes from, but even you've conceded that that's rubbish, so just accept it already. Nothing in the EEP makes any kind of claim about where gravity comes from, or that mass exerts gravity. For the love of god, stop ignoring that already if you're going to refuse to address it.

Rab, if you have nothing to do except spamming the exact same out of context, uninformed line while refusing to even acknowledge anything anyone points out, that's a good indication you're not doing anything except trying to lie to people. You keep insisting you're not a liar, so stop doing it. I have asked you several times over to explain how the hell Einstein's Equivalence Principle makes any claim that mass exerts gravity. You aren't showing that implication. You are constantly pretty much copy/pasting a shorthand summary with no understanding of what it actually means, nor any explanation of why it holds in the way you are using it. I am asking you a question. Answer it, or shut up. How does the EEP make the claim that masses must exert a gravitational force? Don't just keep telling me it does because that's meaningless, tell me how it actually follows from what it really shows. I am really getting sick of your shit.

#### rabinoz

• 25665
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #395 on: August 16, 2019, 05:48:58 AM »
Einstein's Equivalence Principle[/i] implies that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass
At any point are you going to listen to a word I say, or just keep spamming that blatant semantic trick?
I'm still at a total loss as to what this " spamming that blatant semantic trick"! I have never intended any "semantic trick"!

Quote from: Slime
You are conflating definitions. Yes, gravitational mass means 'mass that exerts a gravitational force.' That is not relevant to the EEP. It just isn't.
I beg to differ! It is very relevant to the EEP.
How can we possibly have 'mass subject to a gravitational force' that is not also 'mass exerting a gravitational force'?

Quote from: Slime
I've asked you to show how it is before, and every single time you've evaded the question, so you might want to think about why that is. What the principle actually cares about is 'mass subject to a gravitational force.' That is gravitational mass in this context; again, the EEP tells us that the acceleration caused by gravity is no different to any other kind of acceleration. That's it. That's what the principle actually states. That's what that snippet means, that's what actually follows from Einstein's work and explanation.
You might say, "That's what that snippet means, that's what actually follows from Einstein's work and explanation" but is that what Einstein said? See below!

In Newtonian Gravitation there is no distinction between a 'mass subject to a gravitational force' and 'mass exerting a gravitational force'.
And it was Newtonian Gravitation that Einstein was referring to in:
Quote
Einstein's statement of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass:
"A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:
(Inertial mass) x (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) x (Gravitational mass).
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body."
And from
Quote from: Hyperphysics
Astronomy, Relativity: Principle of Equivalence
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field.
One way of stating this fundamental principle of general relativity is to say that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.
And please remember that, by definition, all mass is 'inertial mass',

And in General Relativity, all mass-energy contributes to the stress–energy tensor. There is no 'exerts'/'subject to' distinction.

To me, "identical" is a reciprocal operation meaning that a 'mass subject to a gravitational force' is also a 'mass exerting a gravitational force' and vice versa.

How can it be any other way? There cannot be two kinds of mass under either Newton's Laws or Einstein's Theory.

That is the import of all mass is inertial mass but gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass then all mass is gravitational mass

Quote from: Slime
You are trying to twist it so you can claim the EEP gives a damn about where gravity actually comes from.
I honestly cannot see any interpretation other than that which I have explained above.

Quote from: Slime
Nothing in the EEP makes any kind of claim about where gravity comes from, or that mass exerts gravity. For the love of god, stop ignoring that already if you're going to refuse to address it.
How is the following "saying nothing"?
Quote
Einstein's statement of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass
A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:
(Inertial mass) x (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) x (Gravitational mass).
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body

As I've said. I disagree and you seem to be disputing what Einstein himself wrote of Einstein's Equivalence Principle?
<< Repeated quote removed for brevity >>

Now if you can be rational for one minute and desist from making your totally unwarranted accusations: How can you interpret those words any other way?

I am not saying that UA is inconsistent with Einstein's Equivalence Prenciple. UA is quite consistent with EEP.

But what I am saying is that claiming that there can be Celestial Gravitation without Terrestrial Gravitation is inconsistent with EEP.

So the FES can hypothesise what it likes - but they are not justified in using the EEP to support more than just UA,

Why do you go into your rant and refuse to explain where I am wrong?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2019, 01:32:39 PM by rabinoz »

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #396 on: August 16, 2019, 06:42:01 AM »
How can we possibly have 'mass subject to a gravitational force' that is not also 'mass exerting a gravitational force'?
Well that was a pathetic rant. You could've just said this, but oh, I know why you didn't. Posturing, trying to look clever, and trying to hide the fact that you are yet again being one of the most outright disgusting users on this site. We've been here before. You said it, got an answer, stopped responding, and here we are again with you pretending like that's unquestionable fact that if false all reality would fall apart, rather than just modern understanding and an alternate model would still easily allow for it without having the slightest impact on the EEP.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2192644#msg2192644
So how can we? Pretty easily. Fields caused by matter that only really exert a force one way, outside of specific circumstances, exist. Why not a model where gravity's one of them?

Also, reminder:
Quote
And in General Relativity, all mass-energy contributes to the stress–energy tensor. There is no 'exerts'/'subject to' distinction.
No one cares. Your claim was that Einstein's Equivalence Principle somehow makes that claim, and that's the nonsense I'm calling you out on. When you need to change the topic, that's a good indication you should stop defending this rubbish.

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 16473
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #397 on: August 16, 2019, 10:18:15 AM »
I'm done talking with you Jack. You are clearly just trolling.

I don't have to show deductive reasoning is truth preserving because it is the definition of it. It's not me "defining it to be what I want", but the accepted definition. You are the one making wild claims, having doubel standards, presenting straw man, and trying to define yourself into the right with your little game around defining 'reasonable' to suit yourself.

I see no point in being a party to your nonsense.
Quantum Ab Hoc

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 39347
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #398 on: August 16, 2019, 11:19:11 AM »
I don't have to show deductive reasoning is truth preserving because it is the definition of it. It's not me "defining it to be what I want", but the accepted definition.
Definition generally accepted by whom?  There are a number of definitions that RE'ers generally accept but FE'ers generally don't, so who's truth is being preserved?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### rabinoz

• 25665
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #399 on: August 16, 2019, 01:30:43 PM »
How can we possibly have 'mass subject to a gravitational force' that is not also 'mass exerting a gravitational force'?
<< So you are incapable of giving a reasoned reply, got that! >>
Why is it that when I do my best to explain things to the best of my ability it's a "rant" but when you go into a real rant it's not a rant? just curious .

But remember that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass and all mass is Inertial Mass therefore all mass is Gravitational Mass.

UA might cherry-pick a small part of EEP but that does not limit EEP to that little bit.

And remember that others are entitled to differ from you without being called liars and being accused of engaging in "semantic tricks".

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #400 on: August 16, 2019, 01:49:52 PM »
Why is it that when I do my best to explain things to the best of my ability it's a "rant" but when you go into a real rant it's not a rant? just curious .
Because one of us is actually answering questions posed, while one of us is taking every possible opportunity to avoid doing so. Don't pretend you're explaining anything when you're just repeating yourself and refusing to acknowledge a single word.

Jesus christ this is pathetic, you're not even trying any more.

But remember that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass and all mass is Inertial Mass therefore all mass is Gravitational Mass.
How about taking the radical approach of saying how that actually follows from 'acceleration caused by gravity is the same as any other acceleration' rather than repeating ad nauseaum? You've already had it pointed out to you how you're conflating definitions. So, please, actually answer the question already. If all you're doing is repeating a quote over and over, that's a pretty good indication you have nothing but semantics. People with actual scientific backing can manage *gasp* explanations.

?

#### JackBlack

• 12687
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #401 on: August 16, 2019, 03:17:41 PM »
I don't have to show deductive reasoning is truth preserving because it is the definition of it. It's not me "defining it to be what I want", but the accepted definition.
Do you mean like how inductive reasoning is accepted under the definition of rational?
And that inductive reasoning is accepted as working, with limitations?
It sure seems like it is still you that is trolling with double standards.

Those who truly follow a position with a complete rejection of inductive reasoning know that we cannot know anything, including the ability to know that we cannot know anything. This would also include not knowing that deductive reasoning works.
You can pretend that inductive reasoning must work by defining it as such, but then we don't know if what we think of as deductive reasoning is actually deductive reasoning, or just something else which falsely attribute as such.
Even deductive reasoning is only substantiated by inductive reasoning, by observing the universe and making conclusions from what is observed, or by itself.

For example, a key part is the law of non-contradiction. But that is based upon our observations of the universe.
Why can't something be true and false at the same time?
What actual justification for this is there?
You have the inductive argument appealing to observations of the universe where nothing is true and false at the same time, and you have deductive arguments which rely upon this principle, such as by showing it leads to a contradiction.

So no, I am not following a double standard, I am merely exposing yours.
I would be quite happy to accept that for everyday purposes, rather than this philosophical level, reasoning works including both inductive and deductive reasoning, which most people would accept.
But you reject this.

Because one of us is actually answering questions posed, while one of us is taking every possible opportunity to avoid doing so.
Yes, you do seem to take every possible opportunity to avoid answering questions.

As pointed out before, the equivalence principle states that objects in a uniform gravitational field is the same as an object in a uniformly accelerating reference frame.
It isn't just a magic force appearing.
The question is who force should an object have?
The force, is determined by the strength of the field and the gravitational mass.
While this does not require gravitational and inertial mass to be equal, it does require them to be proportional, so an object with 10 times the inertial mass of a reference object has 10 times the gravitational mass of that object.

Now can you provide an example where an object with a particular property can be subject to a field, with an interaction with this field resulting in a force, while this property doesn't also mean it creates such a field?

Also note, that Newton's third law seems to require it. Consider what would happen if it isn't the case:
You have an object which is generating a field (the generator).
Another object in this field is then acted upon by the field, but without generating a field of its own (the subject).
This results in a force being applied to the subject and accelerating it.
And that's all.
This means we have generated a force without the corresponding reactionary force.
A direct contradiction of Newton's third law of motion.

In order to conserve Newton's third law of motion, you need to have the subject also create a field which the generator then interacts with and is accelerated by.
This means there is no real distinction between the objects. Both objects generate the field based upon the property, and both objects are affected by the field based upon that property.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #402 on: August 17, 2019, 03:26:23 AM »
Now can you provide an example where an object with a particular property can be subject to a field, with an interaction with this field resulting in a force, while this property doesn't also mean it creates such a field?
Idly glanced at your post. Reminded me of why I don't read them. Thanks for that, I get morbidly curious sometimes.
Yes, easily. You know I can, you were involved in the discussion previously when one was pointed out, it got linked just a few posts ago.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2192644#msg2192644

And pre-empting your obvious irrelevant response:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2192728#msg2192728

#### JimmyTheCrab

• 7846
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #403 on: August 17, 2019, 04:50:34 AM »
Idly glanced at your post. Reminded me of why I don't read them.
You know you don't have to read anyone's posts?  You just seem to like moaning about Rab and Jack - just ignore if you want to.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #404 on: August 17, 2019, 05:02:04 AM »
Idly glanced at your post. Reminded me of why I don't read them.
You know you don't have to read anyone's posts?  You just seem to like moaning about Rab and Jack - just ignore if you want to.
If I was the only one that had to deal with them, I would.

?

#### Platonius21

• 371
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #405 on: August 17, 2019, 06:52:41 AM »
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17529
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #406 on: August 17, 2019, 07:26:03 AM »
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2019, 07:53:57 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### Lonegranger

• 4083
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #407 on: August 17, 2019, 07:57:38 AM »
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Regarding maps, there has never been, as far as I know, any flat earth derived maps that have ever been used for commercial navigation. Can you explain why every commercial map currently sold for navigation has been derived from data that is based on the earth being a 'spherical object' and not a flat disc infinite or otherwise?

It's all very well having alternate views, in some cases it can be quite a good thing, but in the case of maps and navigation, there is only room for one system. If you were to navigate your way from Alaska to Chile, what map(s) would you use for such a journey? If you used regular commercial maps or even sat-nav, do you think you would reach your destination successfully?

If you took a photo of the full moon while in Alaska, then travelled to Chile, assuming the journey took you a full month, can you explain why the moon, when viewed from Chile, would appear upside down with respect to the moon in the picture you took while in Alaska the month previous?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17529
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #408 on: August 17, 2019, 08:07:21 AM »
Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Plugging your ears, I see. None of those sources come from FES. What makes you think that we wrote those sources provided in the link? Nearly the entire Wiki are references to mainstream sources with minimal commentary.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2019, 08:09:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### Lonegranger

• 4083
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #409 on: August 17, 2019, 12:17:43 PM »
Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Plugging your ears, I see. None of those sources come from FES. What makes you think that we wrote those sources provided in the link? Nearly the entire Wiki are references to mainstream sources with minimal commentary.

Well, why not link to the original sources?

#### Macarios

• 1932
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #410 on: August 17, 2019, 02:13:49 PM »
Do you have any other references that you can link to other than those by the FE Soc?  I think your case would be stronger if you were able to quote other sources that were, can I say, more neutral.

Plugging your ears, I see. None of those sources come from FES. What makes you think that we wrote those sources provided in the link? Nearly the entire Wiki are references to mainstream sources with minimal commentary.

Well, why not link to the original sources?

"Because the original sources contain other, undesired data and aren't arranged in the desired way."

Ofcourse, this was a joke, please don't take it seriously.
You have some links to the original sources in the article itself.

I just wonder why is this in the acceleration topic?
But since it is already here...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is represented by those little flat maps?
How big (small) portion of the planet's surface is on each flat map?

Quote
Could those who believe that the Earth is Not Round! article is describing a system which
distributes round earth measurements kindly explain to us how it works without using the
spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude? We would really like to know.

Quote
The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems
designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones,
the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US,
with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.
The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments.
Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system
to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic
coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple
XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

If the Earth was flat, would it have to be divided into small portions for this approximation?
It would be easy to make single flat map and just crop required parts for specific areas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, the difference between polar and equatorial radius is some 21 km,
which, if you scale Earth to 200 millimeters, gets scaled to 0.33 millimeters.

The line you use to draw it on paper is 0.7 millimeters thick.

On screen to have the difference represented as 1 pixel you need the circle of 600 pixels.
In the image below is some circle 600 pixels high.
Can you see if it is 600 or 601 pixels wide?

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.

?

#### JackBlack

• 12687
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #411 on: August 17, 2019, 02:25:12 PM »
Yes, easily. You know I can, you were involved in the discussion previously when one was pointed out, it got linked just a few posts ago.
So that's a no then.

Even with magnetism the components subject to it still create a field. There is no one way interaction like you need which defies physics.
Like I said before, the key distinction between magnetism and gravity is that with magnetism you have dipoles, the other key part is that with magnetism opposites attract. The latter allows 2 opposite components to be quite close and effectively cancel each other's field.

So do you have an example of something being able to interact with a field without being able to create a field of its own, in direct violation of Newton's third law?

?

#### JackBlack

• 12687
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #412 on: August 17, 2019, 02:30:53 PM »
Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
You really need to stop using your wiki of falsehoods as a reference.

Do you have a valid reference for the allegedly accurate flat maps of WGS84?

I thought WGS 84 was just a system to be used for referencing, not a collection of maps.
But feel free to present this accurate global flat map using WGS84.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #413 on: August 17, 2019, 02:53:15 PM »
So do you have an example of something being able to interact with a field without being able to create a field of its own, in direct violation of Newton's third law?
Let's break this down. And for the love of god, don't do one of your unreadable, pretentious line-by-line dissections, there are about two key points in here and everyone's bored of your pettiness. The rest is just background and context.

We're only discussing this because Rab claimed Einstein's Equivalence Principle contradicts the idea of gravity being a property of only some masses rather than all masses. That's been discarded now, to talk purely about whether a gravitational field can affect something that does not exert it, else Rab's supposed argument fails. Further, the only necessary reason for FEers to reject conventional gravity is that the Earth would be drawn into a ball if so. (It is not the only reason FEers might choose to reject it, but it's the only one that's mandatory in this case).
So your objection about components subject to magnetism still creating a field is irrelevant. If you have a paperclip on the outer range of a magnet's force, it does not exert a magnetic field with all the strength of the central magnet. There's that classic experiment most people have done of chaining paperclips from a magnet; the force doesn't go on endlessly, even with direct physical contact. So either way, if gravity behaves the same way you wouldn't get the central point needed to make the Earth form a ball, nor would you get anything that would make it stop being a sphere. You'd have select, specific points of local pull, caused by a small enough source that it would be outweighed by the bonds holding the Earth together. So, irrelevant.
And dipoles, well most matter in this analogy would be the equivalent of metal. The mass that does exert gravity, all you're doing is positing a kind of repulsive gravity that acts solely on other sources of gravity which, well, why not? Going to be tricky to test, but could use that to justify the source of UA for one. Something similar's part of Sandokhan's AFET with respect to the rotation of subquark strings; some attract, some repel.

But all of that is conceding the premise that 'any field like this must behave exactly like magnetism!' which is just silly. I don't need to concede that, but even if I do, there still isn't a problem. One could simply suppose a force that, y'know, isn't identical to magnetism and ta-da. No problem.
And even then, that's conceding 'you must provide an example of something like it for it to be possible!' which is just as silly. There's hardly much like gravity as understood by RET, that's not a reason to reject it. All that matters is the basic description.
There are just... no grounds on which your line of argumentation works. I'm hoping a breakdown actually shows that, but eh, doubt it.

Making it about Newton's Third Law is just deeply, deeply silly and I'm pretty sure you have to know that. If you put an object in a wind tunnel, does it exert a reactive force on the fan, or on the air? Just because something is subject to gravity does not mean that it has to an exert a force back on the object that's causing the gravity, it means there has to be a reactive force on spacetime, which is what imparts gravity, and there's no reason to suppose that reaction has manifest as gravity. There just isn't. That's not how physics works.

#### rabinoz

• 25665
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #414 on: August 17, 2019, 03:16:53 PM »

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Sure we'll see:
Quote
GIS Geography:World Geodetic System (WGS84)
WGS84 is standard for GPS
The Global Positioning System uses the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as its reference coordinate system.
It comprises of a reference ellipsoid, a standard coordinate system, altitude data and a geoid.

Of course "maps are flat in systems such as WGS84"! Globes of sufficient size are extremely unwieldy!

What is a "map"?
Quote from: Charles F. Fuechsel, Encyclopedia Britannica
Map
CARTOGRAPHY

Map, graphic representation, drawn to scale and usually on a flat surface, of features—for example, geographical, geological, or geopolitical—of an area of the Earth or of any other celestial body. Globes are maps represented on the surface of a sphere. Cartography is the art and science of making maps and charts.
Note the "usually on a flat surface"! Funny that! Have you ever tried to buy a "book" of sections of the reference ellipsoid with the road etc for ypur city?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous ridiculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.
No, "those systems" are not "inaccurate since the maps are flat"! WGS84 is far more accurate than YOU will ever need.

But "flat maps" must contain some sort of inaccuracy in angles and or dimensions because a surface with non-zero Gaussian curvature cannot be projected onto a flat surface.
See GIS Geography: Map Distortion with Tissot’s Indicatrix

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17529
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #415 on: August 17, 2019, 03:29:26 PM »
Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
You really need to stop using your wiki of falsehoods as a reference.

Do you have a valid reference for the allegedly accurate flat maps of WGS84?

I thought WGS 84 was just a system to be used for referencing, not a collection of maps.
But feel free to present this accurate global flat map using WGS84.

You think that the mainstream sources in the wiki are publishing falsehoods? Interesting. I can only read this as "I lose this argument".

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17529
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #416 on: August 17, 2019, 03:34:19 PM »

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Sure we'll see:
Quote
GIS Geography:World Geodetic System (WGS84)
WGS84 is standard for GPS
The Global Positioning System uses the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as its reference coordinate system.
It comprises of a reference ellipsoid, a standard coordinate system, altitude data and a geoid.

Of course "maps are flat in systems such as WGS84"! Globes of sufficient size are extremely unwieldy!

What is a "map"?
Quote from: Charles F. Fuechsel, Encyclopedia Britannica
Map
CARTOGRAPHY

Map, graphic representation, drawn to scale and usually on a flat surface, of features—for example, geographical, geological, or geopolitical—of an area of the Earth or of any other celestial body. Globes are maps represented on the surface of a sphere. Cartography is the art and science of making maps and charts.
Note the "usually on a flat surface"! Funny that! Have you ever tried to buy a "book" of sections of the reference ellipsoid with the road etc for ypur city?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous ridiculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.
No, "those systems" are not "inaccurate since the maps are flat"! WGS84 is far more accurate than YOU will ever need.

But "flat maps" must contain some sort of inaccuracy in angles and or dimensions because a surface with non-zero Gaussian curvature cannot be projected onto a flat surface.
See GIS Geography: Map Distortion with Tissot’s Indicatrix

What is your argument? That it uses flat maps but that they are not true representations of reality?

Totally discredits the argument that the WGS system is accurate.

The spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude are not used for measuring distances, in preference of the Flat Map coordinate system, as stated in the "Earth Not Round!" article.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2019, 03:36:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### rabinoz

• 25665
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #417 on: August 17, 2019, 04:06:41 PM »

What is your argument? That it uses flat maps but that they are not true representations of reality?
That "flat maps" must have some distortion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Totally discredits the argument that the WGS system is accurate.
Nothing in it "Totally discredits the argument that the WGS system is accurate"!
The "WGS system is accurate" but the flat map projection from the reference ellipsoid must contain some distortion.
But in practice, that distortion over small regions can be quite insignificant.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude are not used for measuring distances,
Not quite correct!
The spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude can give reasonably accurate distances even though the earth is not quite spherical and the "sums" aren't too hard.

As an example:
The distance from Sydney International Airport (at 33.94735°S, 151.17943°E) to Heathrow Airport (at 51.47002°N, 0.45430°W) is:
17,020 km (calculated from a perfectly spherical earth),
17,015 km (calculated from a ideal ellipsoidal earth) and
17,016 km (from "Great Circle Mapper").

Now you show me that distance from your flat earth map!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
in preference of the Flat Map coordinate system, as stated in the "Earth Not Round!" article.
I'm not going to hunt through that to find any claim that, "The spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude are not used for measuring distances, in preference of the Flat Map coordinate system".

What distances are calculated from any "Flat Map coordinate system"?

And YOU don't even have an accurate Flat Earth Map!

<< ideal ellipsoidal earth added >>
« Last Edit: August 17, 2019, 05:18:01 PM by rabinoz »

#### Stash

• 4081
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #418 on: August 17, 2019, 04:07:55 PM »

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Sure we'll see:
Quote
GIS Geography:World Geodetic System (WGS84)
WGS84 is standard for GPS
The Global Positioning System uses the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as its reference coordinate system.
It comprises of a reference ellipsoid, a standard coordinate system, altitude data and a geoid.

Of course "maps are flat in systems such as WGS84"! Globes of sufficient size are extremely unwieldy!

What is a "map"?
Quote from: Charles F. Fuechsel, Encyclopedia Britannica
Map
CARTOGRAPHY

Map, graphic representation, drawn to scale and usually on a flat surface, of features—for example, geographical, geological, or geopolitical—of an area of the Earth or of any other celestial body. Globes are maps represented on the surface of a sphere. Cartography is the art and science of making maps and charts.
Note the "usually on a flat surface"! Funny that! Have you ever tried to buy a "book" of sections of the reference ellipsoid with the road etc for ypur city?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous ridiculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.
No, "those systems" are not "inaccurate since the maps are flat"! WGS84 is far more accurate than YOU will ever need.

But "flat maps" must contain some sort of inaccuracy in angles and or dimensions because a surface with non-zero Gaussian curvature cannot be projected onto a flat surface.
See GIS Geography: Map Distortion with Tissot’s Indicatrix

What is your argument? That it uses flat maps but that they are not true representations of reality?

Totally discredits the argument that the WGS system is accurate.

The spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude are not used for measuring distances, in preference of the Flat Map coordinate system, as stated in the "Earth Not Round!" article.

Just for the record, it is not called a Flat Map coordinate system. It's proper name is the "State Plane Coordinate System" as defined by NOAA as:

"State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS)

SPCS is a system of large-scale conformal map projections originally created in the 1930s to support surveying, engineering, and mapping activities throughout the U.S. and its territories. As a reminder, a map projection is a systematic transformation of the latitudes and longitudes of locations on the surface of a sphere or ellipsoid representing the Earth to grid coordinates (x, y or easting, northing values) on a plane."

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/SPCS/index.shtml

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17529
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #419 on: August 17, 2019, 04:13:28 PM »
Now you think that they do use grid coordinates as their basis, but that the flat maps were made under the assumption that the earth is globular? Interesting.  Seems to support the idea that the earth is flat and that the globe is an assumption.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2019, 04:19:37 PM by Tom Bishop »