« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

The Cavendish Experiment

  • 14 Replies
  • 2898 Views
?

Ezkerraldean

  • 372
The Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 24, 2007, 08:37:58 AM »
it proves that "round-earth" gravity works. flat-earth acceleration cannot explain it, since the gravitational attraction that is observed happens horizontally. Explain.
Logged
tf?
?

CharlesJohnson

  • 212
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2007, 08:42:19 AM »
Nice one!
I bet they'll tell you it was a conspiracy. These people can't accept
anything that contradicts their beliefs.
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2007, 08:47:26 AM »
Gravity still exists to some extent in the current FE model. It's just not the primary force that keeps your feet on the ground.
Logged
?

darkstorm

  • 55
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2007, 08:52:30 AM »
Yes duct tape is still the main physical force.
Logged
y the power of gray skull
?

CharlesJohnson

  • 212
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2007, 09:01:44 AM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Gravity still exists to some extent in the current FE model. It's just not the primary force that keeps your feet on the ground.

If it did exist then the gravity exerted by your giant plane would drop off
as 1/d (d being the distance from the plane) Not 1/(d^2) which
experiment clearly shows.

But suppose the force we felt were a combination of gravity and the "inertia due to acceleration" That still wouldnt make F proportional to 1/(d^2).

You're screwed
admit it!
Logged
*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2007, 10:43:16 AM »
The actual gravitational force caused by Earth's mass would be relatively insignificant compared to the inertial force from the acceleration. The weakening of actual gravity near the edges of the Earth would be unnoticeable against the background of local variations.
Logged
the cake is a lie
?

Xanthanov

  • 7
Basic Newtonian Physics
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2007, 11:14:27 AM »
I still think the following is one of the best arguments against a flat earth (if you believe in newtonian physics). If the earth and sun were colinear, and you believe that for every force there is an opposite and equal force, then it is impossible to have stable equilibrium for 2 bodies in a line, unless it's a bizarre force that is attractive at some distances and repulsive at others.... In simpler terms, the bodies would either accelerate away from each other or crash into each other. If the earth was flat, but rotated around the sun, that would be pretty bizaree, and you would expect it to become round from the forces.
Logged
lt;=><an+han0v=>
?

dantheman40k

  • 541
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2007, 11:27:02 AM »
Flat Earther wont reply to this, this has been brought up in other threads and the FEers ignore it.
Logged
FE Pwnage Archive

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=8101.0


The Engineer is still a douchebag







.
?

Curious

  • 413
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2007, 11:49:03 AM »
Quote from: "CharlesJohnson"
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Gravity still exists to some extent in the current FE model. It's just not the primary force that keeps your feet on the ground.

If it did exist then the gravity exerted by your giant plane would drop off
as 1/d (d being the distance from the plane) Not 1/(d^2) which
experiment clearly shows.

But suppose the force we felt were a combination of gravity and the "inertia due to acceleration" That still wouldnt make F proportional to 1/(d^2).

You're screwed
admit it!

Why would 1/d express the force of gravity rather than 1/d^2?

Quote from: "Newton's Inverse Square Law"
Any point source which spreads its influence equally in all directions without a limit to its range will obey the inverse square law. This comes from strictly geometrical considerations. The intensity of the influence at any given radius (r) is the source strength divided by the area of the sphere. Being strictly geometric in its origin, the inverse square law applies to diverse phenomena. Point sources of gravitational force, electric field, light, sound, and radiation obey the inverse square law.


I understand that as a sphere, it is easier to work with the earth's gravity as a point source, than if it was a disk, but even a disk would be subject to a slightly modified version, which is why a disk just wouldn't work with gravity, the whole flat thing would get very subjective as gravity would pull things toward the middle instead of "Down".
Logged
?

Ezkerraldean

  • 372
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2007, 12:46:18 PM »
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Flat Earther wont reply to this, this has been brought up in other threads and the FEers ignore it.


that's why they phuck me off soooooo much, and why i essentially just became a troll. because when you actually think of something decent, they totally ignore it.
Logged
tf?
?

CharlesJohnson

  • 212
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2007, 03:42:49 PM »
Quote from: "Curious"
Why would 1/d express the force of gravity rather than 1/d^2?

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on asking a good question.

I don't see many of these on this forum.

It can be shown using calculus that the force of attraction between an object and an infinite plane drops off as 1/d. I say infinite plane, because
if the plane had edges, there would be some bizarre effects that would go
on near the edges.

Effectively, for a localized region of the earth in the flat earth model, it
could be considered an infinite plane.

The proof for this is purely mathematical, so its pretty much indesputable.
Logged
?

Xanthanov

  • 7
Almost, but no cigar
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2007, 04:06:30 PM »
Actually, for an infinite plane, the force would be approximately constant. For an infinite wire, the force goes as 1/r. If you don't believe me, here is a page on the same problem for E&M (it is essentially the same, as an electric field goes like q/r^2.) That is assuming constant surface density of mass (i.e. approximate the earth as an ideal plane.)

http://library.thinkquest.org/16600/advanced/electricfields.shtml
Logged
lt;=><an+han0v=>
?

CharlesJohnson

  • 212
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2007, 04:09:54 PM »
You're right... I apologise.
Its been a few years since I studied this.
Logged
?

Xanthanov

  • 7
Infinite plane
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2007, 04:37:05 PM »
Hehe, no problem. I am a physics major after all.
Logged
lt;=><an+han0v=>
?

CharlesJohnson

  • 212
The Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2007, 04:48:32 PM »
:oops: So was I.
In fact electrodynamics was my favorite subject  :lol:
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »