The case for Gravity and UA

  • 85 Replies
  • 5014 Views
*

Timeisup

  • 2246
The case for Gravity and UA
« on: January 03, 2021, 01:55:40 AM »
The fundamental difference between conventional science and FE belief is the existence of Gravity. For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood.
While I can pick from many sources that will trace the beginnings of its discovery and explain how an understanding of how it operates has grown from falling apples to the discovery of gravitational waves there are no sources, that Iím aware of, that will do the same for UA.
While a simple search on current gravitational research will yield many hits
https://www.nature.com/subjects/general-relativity-and-gravity
A similar search on UA as proposed by FE belief will yield none!
The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?
What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2021, 03:53:03 AM »
Fairy stories and imaginings.

Im afraid that's not really an answer. The idea of UA must have come about from somewhere and what many people would like to know is what body of research is it based on? Its very easy to read about the whole story of gravity and all the experiments and research that has been conducted to support its validity.  When it comes to UA its very different I can find no books, papers or references on the subject or links to any physicists who may have come up with the idea. it's as if the whole concept of UA appeared out of thin air. It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on? Where is the evidence for their case? Where is the evidence for UA?

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16274
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2021, 06:44:55 AM »
If you'd like to discuss UA, while you are welcome to ask questions here you will almost certainly get more feedback at the other site as they have several more active posters that subscribe to the UA model.

*

Mattathome

  • 25
  • I love this site, it goes round and round...
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2021, 07:29:03 AM »
The fundamental difference between conventional science and FE belief is the existence of Gravity.

Just like to make a point here that not all FE believers follow the UA model.  Some FE models represent Earth as an infinite plain, where gravity works. 

If you'd like to discuss UA, while you are welcome to ask questions here you will almost certainly get more feedback at the other site as they have several more active posters that subscribe to the UA model.

The best open ended answer you're ever likely to get
Seeking Truth, but refusal to believe...that is paradoxitradalsensationimorbididiocyalism.


Why are you clicking that?

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2021, 08:04:20 AM »
@timeisup

"For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood."

Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.

"The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?"

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.  The people who study flat earth research are working on other problems - frequently the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence/data/science to the presumptive model.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

"What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?"

Could you turn this into a multiple choice question? What do you imagine options for "knowledge base"'s might be?

In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

"The idea of UA must have come about from somewhere and what many people would like to know is what body of research is it based on?"

As far as I know, UA originated from the tfes forums - but I don't know which one or which user :(. I am not a proponent.

"it's as if the whole concept of UA appeared out of thin air."

Yes, this is how ideas - especially radical scientific ones - often come into being.  The world was blindsided and transformed by some of them.  Though no man is an island, and nothing exists in a vacuum.

"It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on?"

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

"Where is the evidence for their case? Where is the evidence for UA?"

You misunderstand.  The posit for UA is a simple reference frame/convention reversal.  The evidence for "gravitation" IS the evidence for UA.  All that appears as a force pulling down, is actually a large force pushing everything up.  It is a fundamentally consistent and scientifically sound perspective / model.  You may do the same for the sky in astronomy.  There is no problem for the science/mathematics to define the sky/universe as moving and the earth as stationary.  It's just by arbitrated convention that we agree on such things.

It is funny and telling/meaningful that you (and most everyone else) mention myth (apples falling) when discussing the origins of the "science" of gravitation.

*

Stash

  • 8281
  • I am car!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2021, 08:54:24 AM »
@timeisup

"For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood."

Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.

How so?

"The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?"

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.  The people who study flat earth research are working on other problems - frequently the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence/data/science to the presumptive model.

Instead of working on the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence, focus on a functional map. That is the Holy Grail for FET.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

As far as disposal is concerned, are you suggesting that engineers remove all gravity equations from their calculations when designing an airplane or a roller coaster and rely solely on the Archimedes Principle?

"What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?"

Could you turn this into a multiple choice question? What do you imagine options for "knowledge base"'s might be?

In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

Nothing like overstating the obvious in too many words. Science should focus on facts. Got it.

"It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on?"

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

How is it stupid and unscientific when we apply his principles to almost everything that is engineered today? Yes, I understand this is an appeal to authority, but what isn't really? It's also an appeal to reality.

Is there some hurdle that is preventing you from using the quote feature? When one does use it, it preserves some semblance of context and allows later readers to quickly click back to the original post to gather perhaps even more context.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2021, 11:24:55 AM »
Anyone who rejects gravity and uses a smartphone is a hypocrite.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2021, 01:15:07 PM »
@groit

Translation: Anyone who doesn't believe in/accept my particular dogmas about science doesn't deserve science or technology.  aka "Burn the heretic" a few centuries ago.

It's not a very enlightened, objective, curious, or scientific perspective... it does have a lamentably long history though.

No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) on gravitation.  Also, this is a slightly tricky discussion regarding the equivocation fallacy.  I am speaking of gravitation, not gravity, and most people don't recognize the difference.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2021, 10:01:40 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2021, 01:23:16 PM »
Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.
Do you mean a finite disc?
If so, what would stop gravity causing that disc to collapse into a sphere, given that it much too large to be held together by its material properties?

And just what distribution of matter allows a flat disc to have a downwards field of relatively similar strength (only a small ~1% variation), where if you are including variations, they match what is observed, with gravity strongest at the centre of your FE disc and at the outer ring?

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.
If you want to have a model which can compete with the RE model, you do need a replacement, as you need to explain why things fall.
Even just appealing to weight like you have done is an attempt at a replacement.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever.
You mean falsely concluded, as there is plenty of evidence backing it up. Things includes the simple evidence of objects falling, to the more advanced experiments like those of Cavendish, which you can even do yourself, and plenty of people have done. It also includes the celestial objects following their predictable orbits due to gravity and all the satellites in orbit around Earth.

Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.
Which in no way explains why things fall.


In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.
Knowledge is a subset of belief. In order to know something you must believe it.
One of the simple definitions of knowledge is "Justified, true belief".

So what matters is why you believe.
If you just believe because you have been told, or because you want to reject something or you just want it to be true, you have faith.
But if you believe based upon evidence and logical arguments, then (assuming that is sufficient and can withstand scrutiny and it actually shows what you believe is true rather than just thinking it does) it becomes knowledge and fact, at least for practical purposes.


  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity.
So because he came up with an idea you don't like, you dismiss him as not being a scientist?
What he did was entirely scientific.
He had experimental observations which didn't have a very good explanation at all, and realised that they could be connected with a simple force and hypothesised that gravity exists and follows a simple inverse square law.
As a low energy approximation, that turned out to be quite accurate, with later experiments confirming it and a later model capable of being approximated to that.

The evidence for "gravitation" IS the evidence for UA.
No, it isn't.
Only the simplest of evidence of things falling is evidence for UA (and that is not UA in preference to gravity)
The more advanced evidence including how the rate of acceleration varies around Earth, especially the variation based upon latitude, and how satellites orbit Earth, and other planets orbit the sun and so on, and how objects on Earth are attracted to one another based upon mass, in no way supports UA.

It is a fundamentally consistent and scientifically sound perspective / model.
Only when looked at in the most superficial way.
As soon as you delve deeper, it falls apart.
For example, simply asking why it seems that everything in the universe accelerates together, including all the objects at some height above Earth with all their different sizes, but not us just above Earth?
Or asking why the apparent rate of acceleration towards Earth varies around Earth, rather than being constant as you would expect if it was simply Earth accelerating upwards?

No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) gravitation.
That depends on how much you actually analyse the connections between them.
For example, do you use GPS on you phone? If so, that uses gravity as that uses satellites.

*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2021, 04:55:43 PM »
No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) gravitation.  Also, this is a slightly tricky discussion regarding the equivocation fallacy.  I am speaking of gravitation, not gravity, and most people don't recognize the difference.

What exactly is your definition of "gravitation" and how does it differ from theories of gravity used in either Einstein's or Newton's works?

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2021, 04:55:08 AM »

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

Mass is the intrinsic property, itís a scalar quantity (ie has no direction).  Weight is the force on a mass due to gravity (the Newtonian version).  Forces are vector quantities and consist of both magnitude and direction.  Thatís whatís missing from Flat Earther attempts to somehow just ignore gravity.  Youíre missing a reason for down to be down.  At least the UA proponents understand that much.


Quote
In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

Scientism is just a silly word used by people who want to arbitrarily dismiss any scientific findings they donít like or donít understand.

And Newton proposed a few simple equations that near perfectly describe and explain the motions of all objects observed in the solar system, at the same time as explaining why things fall down in earth.  Two things Flat Earthers are unable to explain hundreds of years later. 

@groit

Translation: Anyone who doesn't believe in/accept my particular dogmas about science doesn't deserve science or technology.  aka "Burn the heretic" a few centuries ago.

It's not a very enlightened, objective, curious, or scientific perspective... it does have a lamentably long history though.

No science or technology (let's leave satellites out for the time being, unless you insist) depends (or has anything to do with) on gravitation.  Also, this is a slightly tricky discussion regarding the equivocation fallacy.  I am speaking of gravitation, not gravity, and most people don't recognize the difference.

Newtonís Law of Universal Gravitation is in the first few pages of several of my engineering text books, right after his laws of motion.  That on Earth, there is a downward force acting on all mass is absolutely fundamental to mechanical and structural engineering. 

So our technology is designed and built accounting for gravity.  You might want to try to find an equivalent to do the same thing, but saying we can just do without it is total nonsense.

If you want to be objective and scientific, maybe you should learn about the concepts you claim can be disposed of?

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2021, 11:58:52 PM »
@jackblack

Quote
Do you mean a finite disc?

Possibly. Regardless of shape, the idea that the only shape it could be is a sphere merely because gravity exists is dumb.

Quote
If so, what would stop gravity causing that disc to collapse into a sphere

The same things that currently do (structure, tensile strength etc.).  Most everything in nature is not a sphere - nor are they collapsing into one.

Quote
given that it much too large to be held together by its material properties?

Lol.  Why on earth do you think we know the material properties of the entire world? We have no idea what it is made of except for the smallest most insignificant fraction of the "crust".

Quote
And just what distribution of matter allows a flat disc to have a downwards field of relatively similar strength (only a small ~1% variation), where if you are including variations, they match what is observed, with gravity strongest at the centre of your FE disc and at the outer ring?

There isn't only one - use your imagination! (or don't, completely up to you). You may also wish to consider that the known world we have "gravity" measurements of may not be the entirety of it - which allows still more possibilities for shape/distribution.

Quote
If you want to have a model which can compete with the RE model

As I explained to timeisup, "we" - myself and the majority of flat earth researchers I have encountered are not interested in models - competitive or otherwise.  This is something YOU want, not most of the people involved in flat earth research (there are some working towards this end - but it takes a tremendous amount of data collection and effort to create an accurate model of a world and it can be expected to take millennia as the existing presumptive one did - especially when only engaged with by small numbers of unfunded/unsupported individuals)

Models are not a part of science proper.  They are meta scientific tools for specific purposes.  All models are wrong, but some are limitedly useful for a finite time.  There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth), and models have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote
Even just appealing to weight like you have done is an attempt at a replacement.

Actually, it's just reversion.  When we discover that our latest scientific theory is garbage (which happens quite frequently historically), we revert to the previous one.  It's pretty simple - as I said, archimedes had all this worked out millennia ago.

Quote
You mean falsely concluded, as there is plenty of evidence backing it up.

Ah, with the typical certainty of the common religious zealot.  You haven't seen the evidence or research I have, but my conclusion is obviously wrong BECAUSE your's MUST be right...

Quote
Which in no way explains why things fall.

They fall because there is nothing to hold them up, and more specifically/explicitly BECAUSE they were lifted.  Things fall with the energy that was used to lift them - nothing more; in accordance with the law of conservation.

Quote
Knowledge is a subset of belief.

I like it, it is poetic - it's just wrong.  Knowledge and belief are separate and distinct, and they are best kept that way.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  In science, we eschew belief and we demand proof by experiment instead!

Quote
So because he came up with an idea you don't like, you dismiss him as not being a scientist?

It is in no way that simple or cut and dry.  I know so much about newton BECAUSE I like him so much.  I say he wasn't a scientist because he wasn't - not in the modern sense of the word we use today.  It isn't iconoclasty for its own sake - though I am not above that as I loathe idolatry.

Also, you seemed to have missed one of the most important points... Gravity was NOT his idea!!! He even asked that his name not be associated with it!  We have been largely mistaught about newton.

Quote
What he did was entirely scientific.

Arguably, but only by caveat.  Science is only that which rigorously adheres to the scientific method, and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces.  The caveat is called natural law, and it is established solely through observation alone.

He speculated a cause, called gravity.  He did not even bother, famously, to even feign a hypothesis regarding it - as he knew full well it was outside the realm of science.  He literally attributed the force, its mechanism, and apportioning/application to god almighty.

It is fine to hypothesize any cause you wish, but it isn't science until it is experimentally validated.  That is the only purpose of hypothesis.  Newton knew there was no experimental validation possible, which is why he didn't even bother to try.

Quote
No, it isn't.

It is much analogous to the centrifugal/centripetal distinction in physics which I assume you are familiar with.  The evidence for gravity is used as the evidence for UA.  It is a straight convention flip - and it causes no issues for calculation/model/science.

Quote
The more advanced evidence ... in no way supports UA.

I personally think UA is junk because it trades one problem for another, and just inverts gravity.  I don't think its proponents would have any difficulty reconciling/explaining your examples in the flipped framework - after all, it's only flipped!

Quote
For example, simply asking why it seems that everything in the universe accelerates together, including all the objects at some height above Earth with all their different sizes, but not us just above Earth?

I am confused by the phrasing, could you restate?  Wether the ground is, in fact, rising to meet the falling object - or the object is falling to meet the stationary ground - the result is the same.  Wether the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone - it's going to be very bad for the pitcher.

Quote
Or asking why the apparent rate of acceleration towards Earth varies around Earth, rather than being constant as you would expect if it was simply Earth accelerating upwards?

I think that is a valid criticism/question, however it is easily reconciled if one is so inclined.  For instance, there are those that conclude that the apparent acceleration variance is caused by other factors (like varying buoyant force, seismic activity, etc.) and so on.

Quote
For example, do you use GPS on you phone? If so, that uses gravity as that uses satellites.

So we are told, yes!  In any case, the point was that no technology or science requires the shape of the earth to be anything particular.  Orbit perhaps does - but that is another can of worms, which is why I asked that satellites be left out for the time being (unless insisted).
« Last Edit: January 08, 2021, 12:03:03 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2021, 12:22:58 AM »
@jja

Quote
What exactly is your definition of "gravitation" and how does it differ from theories of gravity used in either Einstein's or Newton's works?

Specific definition (einsteinian, cavendishian, newtonian, epicurian) is irrelevant, it is the difference between gravity and gravitation, between scientific law and theory that is so commonly misunderstood.

Gravity is a natural law.  Natural law is a behavior of nature that is consistently and rigorously measured. It is bore through rigorous and repeated measurement alone.  The law of gravity is, in its roughest and most imprecise terms - what goes up, must come down.

Gravitation is a theory.  Theory is bore and refined through experiment.

The mathematical formulations further confuse/conflate things, as they introduce non-real (purely mathematical) entities borrowed from gravitation (theory) in their description of the real gravity (law).

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2021, 01:27:38 AM »
Quote
Do you mean a finite disc?
Possibly. Regardless of shape, the idea that the only shape it could be is a sphere merely because gravity exists is dumb.
And just why do you think it is dumb?
It is quite sound.
The are only a few main forces holding objects together:
The strong and weak nuclear forces, which hold together individual atomic nuclei; which is only significant over that tiny range.
Electromagnetic interactions, which which hold electrons to nuclei, and which form molecules and solid structures. This again has a fairly small effective range due to things pairing up (e.g. the positive nucleus with the negative electrons), but with how it can strongly join things together, it will work over much greater distances. But it still has a limit. There is a maximum force any object held together via electromagnetic interactions can take before it breaks.
Then there is gravity. With at least this part of the universe made of things with positive mass, it will hold together and not pair up. This means an object on the other side of Earth will still attract you.

So when you consider a large solid object, the nuclear forces are only holding together the smallest parts and play no role in keeping the overall object together; electromagnetism plays a more significant role, but (for simplicity assuming a homogenous substance) the force it provides is the same throughout and doesn't scale with the size of the object, e.g. it is the same if the object was 1 mm or 1 Mm.
And then there is gravity; unlike the others this does scale with the size of the object. Again simplifying with a homogenous substance, which I will have as a sphere for simplicity of calculation, the mass is proportional to r^3, while the strength of gravity at the surface pulling towards the centre scales with mass/r^2, so overall it scales with r.
i.e. double the radius, double the surface gravity.

But it isn't that simple, that puts the entire system under pressure and typically results in the object being more dense that it would be without gravity, increasing it even more. Eventually you have enough gravity to overcome the electromagnetic force and have the object collapse.

And this applies regardless of the shape.
Consider any object of any shape. It would be under some pressure due to gravity.
But now sit it on another object. The gravitational attraction to the other object will increase the pressure.
If you keep doing this, you will eventually reach a large enough pressure to cause the object to fail.

This means that gravity will create a maximum size to any object, and it is only a question of what that size is.

Quote
If so, what would stop gravity causing that disc to collapse into a sphere
The same things that currently do
You mean the pressure of the ground pushing outwards preventing further collapse into a point?

Most everything in nature is not a sphere
You mean most small things.
Find me an object in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which is not roughly spherical.
You know, at the size range that gravity would crush it into a sphere. (which for rocky material is roughly 600 km.)

The things comparable to Earth would be the celestial objects, which are round, except for the much smaller asteroids.

Lol.  Why on earth do you think we know the material properties of the entire world? We have no idea what it is made of except for the smallest most insignificant fraction of the "crust".
And also the flowing magma below the crust.
We also know things like what pressure is required for nuclear fusion, which would turn Earth into a star.

Quote
And just what distribution of matter allows a flat disc to have a downwards field of relatively similar strength (only a small ~1% variation), where if you are including variations, they match what is observed, with gravity strongest at the centre of your FE disc and at the outer ring?
There isn't only one
So you should easily be able to provide one, rather than just telling me to use my imagination.


As I explained to timeisup, "we" - myself and the majority of flat earth researchers I have encountered are not interested in models
Yes, you seem to just be interested in discarding reality with no just cause and coming up with whatever excuses you can to pretend it all works fine.
See if you actually cared about the truth you would be interested in developing a model which explains all that the mainstream model already explains.


it can be expected to take millennia
You have had that time. People thought Earth was flat before they realised it was round.
But a big issue with developing the model and it taking so long was new phenomenon being discovered and better measurements being able to more accurately determine things and being able to travel all over the world.
You have all that now, and thus it shouldn't take you anywhere near as long. If you wiped out our model of Earth, but we kept all our measuring tools and records of observations, we would develop the same RE model quite quickly.

Models are not a part of science proper.
Yes they are. They are the hypothesis which is tested to check if it matches reality.
Unless you are making models and testing them, you aren't doing science.

There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth), and models have absolutely nothing to do with it.
That is a very limited view. There is no tool in existence like a tape measure which can simply measure Earth.
The best you can do is a tool which measures small portions of Earth, which then has errors with combining it into a much larger MODEL
The closest you could get to direct measurements are satellites taking pictures of Earth from many angles (which show it is round). Even then it is still a model.

The more sane and scientific approach is to have a model, make predictions from that model, and see if they match. To use observations (including measurements) from reality to determine which models match the measurement and which don't, or to refine the model, such as filling in unconstrained variables.

Quote
Even just appealing to weight like you have done is an attempt at a replacement.
Actually, it's just reversion.
It doesn't matter what you want to call it, it is a replacement.

It's pretty simple - as I said, archimedes had all this worked out millennia ago.
If it is pretty simple, why can't you explain it?
Why should mass make anything fall?

Ah, with the typical certainty of the common religious zealot.
No, with the conviction of someone with understanding, dismissing wild claims.

You haven't seen the evidence or research I have, but my conclusion is obviously wrong BECAUSE your's MUST be right...
No, because I have seen and obtained evidence clearly showing gravity, and know that your attempt to replace it doesn't work as it fails to address so much. And because like so many, rather than attempting to show anything wrong with it, or provide a viable alternative, you just dismiss it as fake, with the typical certainty of the common religious zealot.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2021, 01:28:25 AM »
They fall because there is nothing to hold them up
Nothing holding them up does not provide a reason for them to fall.
You would still need an actual reason.
Is there anything holding them down? If not, why don't they fly up?
You need an explanation for the directionality.

BECAUSE they were lifted.  Things fall with the energy that was used to lift them - nothing more; in accordance with the law of conservation.
Yes, just like if I push this glass sitting on my desk to the right, expending energy to do so, it falls back to the left. Oh wait, it didn't.
Maybe the friction of the table got in the way. I'll try with throwing a ball to the right. Surely that should then force it back to the left.
Strange, still no. It is as if that explanation is pure nonsense which doesn't explain it at all.

We clearly have examples of expending energy to move an object, yet it doesn't cause it to go back the other way.
So that clearly doesn't explain it.
You need an explanation for the direction.

Why does lifting an object take energy, where you supply the object with gravitational potential energy (I suppose you would call it weight potential energy?) But only lifting it, with moving it to the side not taking that energy?
Why does it then release this energy when it comes back down. Just what is this energy in your "weight makes things go down"?

In fact, without something like gravity, the simple act of throwing a ball up into the air and having it fall is a direct violation of the law of conversation of energy.
If it conserved energy it would continue moving upwards, rather than losing energy for no reason at all. And when stopped it would not accelerate downwards as that would give it energy from nothing.

Quote
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
I like it, it is poetic - it's just wrong.
I don't care if you want to reject it, it is still true.
A belief is something you think is true.
Belief are the things you think are true.
Knowledge are those things you think are true, that actually are true, and that you have a justification for thinking are true.

What you are thinking of is faith.

I say he wasn't a scientist because he wasn't - not in the modern sense of the word we use today.
How wasn't he?

Gravity was NOT his idea
So whose was it?
Especially with it being a universal law of gravitation, with F=GMm/r^2

He speculated a cause, called gravity.  He did not even bother, famously, to even feign a hypothesis regarding it
So what was the whole F=GMm/r^2 thing?
That sure seems to be a hypothesis.

The only question is how to test it.
We already knew Earth was massive, and thus the force acting on an object on Earth would be quite small, and thus hard to actually test the law.
But we have gotten a lot better since then, and have validated it in the low energy limit.

Quote
No, it isn't.
The evidence for gravity is used as the evidence for UA.
Again, A TINY PORTION of the evidence for gravity is used for UA. (that things fall)
They 2 are not simply equivalent in the sense of you can just reject gravity and replace it entirely with UA.
They are equivalent in a local environment, where for a given local environment, where the gravitational acceleration is constant, that can be equally explained with gravity or acceleration.

But in a much broader sense, it can't. That is because the gravitational acceleration changes.

Again, for a simple example, with accepting the fact that Earth is round (which you can do for the sake of argument even if you don't accept it):
UA postulates that Earth accelerates upwards instead of gravity pulling us down. But with a round Earth this would be Earth accelerates outwards. This would mean that it would grow over time, drastically increasing its size and isolating parts of Earth from other parts in short order.
It would also mean that a satellite wouldn't maintain an orbit. Again, the simple way is that Earth would expand outwards and it would crash into it (as it follows a straight line). The more complex way is to note that to maintain the orbit the average of gravity needs to be 0, that is the direction changes such that after some period of time the total acceleration amounts to 0. For UA this would actually require Earth to be going around in circles around a stationary satellite. And that would have to apply for each satellite.

Likewise it in no way addresses cavendish.

You cannot simply reject gravity and replace it with UA, it simply doesn't work.
Just like you can't simply reject gravity and replace it with weight magically falling for no reason.

I am confused by the phrasing, could you restate?
UA is almost, but not quite, universal.
It seems to act to accelerate almost everything, the Earth, the moon, the sun, and all the other stars and celestial objects.

But for things just above Earth, it doesn't. Instead they are only indirectly accelerated by Earth. This means a ball just above Earth when released appears to fall and hit Earth, while the sun, much higher above (but still quite low compared to the size of Earth) is accelerated upwards and thus doesn't appear to fall and hit Earth.

And these objects which are accelerated upwards are all accelerated up at the same rate, so they aren't separated or fall smashed together; even though they have vastly different sizes.

This raises serious questions for how all that is achieved and makes UA extremely complicated.

I think that is a valid criticism/question, however it is easily reconciled if one is so inclined.  For instance, there are those that conclude that the apparent acceleration variance is caused by other factors (like varying buoyant force, seismic activity, etc.) and so on.
And they can all be ruled out.
Buoyant force would have no effect in a vacuum chamber, or when the environment is controlled to make it the same. The accurate gravimeters use a ball falling in a vacuum.
Seismic activity would only work to explain fluctuations, not sustained variations, unless that seismic activity is Earth being torn apart.

So neither of those explain it.
Instead you would need to appeal to some other force like gravity, or claim the UA somehow penetrates Earth and acts on things, but only slightly (yet still manages to then accelerate things much higher, and raises the question of why that doesn't on the size of the object).

So we are told, yes!  In any case, the point was that no technology or science requires the shape of the earth to be anything particular.
And he specifically referred to a smartphone, which uses GPS. Not to mention it also has a clock (which keeps time accurately using GPS), which is based quite heavily on the shape of Earth, as a RE can actually explain different time zones and things like the sun setting.
If Earth was flat, we would have a vastly different time setup.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2021, 02:58:46 AM »
@timeisup

"For the earth to be flat then gravity as it is currently understood must not exist and operate as is currently understood."

Not exactly, but this is a common conclusion. If gravity were real, non uniform density / distribution of matter could enable the world to be many different shapes, including a disc with a flat top - if one so desires.

"The question is how can flat earthers hope to replace Gravity with UA when there is no body of evidence to support it?"

The answer is; they don't. YOU would like a replacement for gravity, assuming gravity is in fact non-real.  The people who study flat earth research are working on other problems - frequently the establishment of contrary/contradictory evidence/data/science to the presumptive model.

Many flat earth researchers, like myself, have concluded that gravity (or more correctly - gravitation) is unscientific fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It doesn't require a replacement, it only requires disposal.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, that's all.  Archimedes had this all worked out millennia ago.

"What knowledge base is UA belief actually based on?"

Could you turn this into a multiple choice question? What do you imagine options for "knowledge base"'s might be?

In any case, a central aspect of flat earth research is the concerted distinction and discernment between belief and knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe the world is round, flat, or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  Ideally once you begin researching the topic in earnest, you no longer find knowledge based on belief acceptable - ESPECIALLY when it comes to science.

"The idea of UA must have come about from somewhere and what many people would like to know is what body of research is it based on?"

As far as I know, UA originated from the tfes forums - but I don't know which one or which user :(. I am not a proponent.

"it's as if the whole concept of UA appeared out of thin air."

Yes, this is how ideas - especially radical scientific ones - often come into being.  The world was blindsided and transformed by some of them.  Though no man is an island, and nothing exists in a vacuum.

"It's pretty clear from reading various posts on this site that many FE proponents dislike the whole notion of Gravity but what is their dislike actually based on?"

In my case, it is the love of science and the dislike of scientism.  Newton was not a scientist, and he understood what he was doing when he invoked the stupid and unscientific magic of epicurian gravity. Subsequent students weren't as fortunate/learned.

"Where is the evidence for their case? Where is the evidence for UA?"

You misunderstand.  The posit for UA is a simple reference frame/convention reversal.  The evidence for "gravitation" IS the evidence for UA.  All that appears as a force pulling down, is actually a large force pushing everything up.  It is a fundamentally consistent and scientifically sound perspective / model.  You may do the same for the sky in astronomy.  There is no problem for the science/mathematics to define the sky/universe as moving and the earth as stationary.  It's just by arbitrated convention that we agree on such things.

It is funny and telling/meaningful that you (and most everyone else) mention myth (apples falling) when discussing the origins of the "science" of gravitation.

You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results? or any results for that matter. Its very easy to say you have carried out research...so where is it? how was it carried out? what was your methodology? Like many flat earth advocates you are big on words and non-existent on any proof to back up your claims.

The idea of the apple falling is just a nice story that has nothing to do with gravity and its validity.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2021, 03:16:54 AM »
@jja

Quote
What exactly is your definition of "gravitation" and how does it differ from theories of gravity used in either Einstein's or Newton's works?

Specific definition (einsteinian, cavendishian, newtonian, epicurian) is irrelevant, it is the difference between gravity and gravitation, between scientific law and theory that is so commonly misunderstood.

Gravity is a natural law.  Natural law is a behavior of nature that is consistently and rigorously measured. It is bore through rigorous and repeated measurement alone.  The law of gravity is, in its roughest and most imprecise terms - what goes up, must come down.

Gravitation is a theory.  Theory is bore and refined through experiment.

The mathematical formulations further confuse/conflate things, as they introduce non-real (purely mathematical) entities borrowed from gravitation (theory) in their description of the real gravity (law).

You say you and others 'do' research on gravity.....now that is a hard one to swallow when one considers what is actually required to do meaningful research. Current research on gravity has gone beyond apples falling looking at how it operates on a universal scale by studying gravitational waves using detectors such as LIGO and other complex land and space based systems. What makes you imagine with no more than paper and a pencil that you and some others could provide some insight that can compete with current research and that has somehow eluded the greatest minds of the last 200 years. The fact is you imagine the earth is flat, which it is clearly is not, then you then proceed from that false premise trying to bend the laws of nature to fit with your false starting point. Its akin to making a fundamental mistake in the first line of a mathematical problem and trying to convince yourself that the final answer is correct.




*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2021, 05:10:55 AM »
@jackblack

Quote
Do you mean a finite disc?

Possibly. Regardless of shape, the idea that the only shape it could be is a sphere merely because gravity exists is dumb.

If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb. 

But we have hundreds and thousands of other reasons and evidence that all confirm it.  Like people going into space and looking at it. 

We don't have any evidence showing it to be a cube, or flat.  Thinking it's flat without any evidence, that is dumb.

*

Shifter

  • 20632
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2021, 11:49:35 AM »
like people going into space and looking at it. 

Seems an arduous task just to get a good view. Might as well just go here
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2021, 12:12:45 PM »
@jja

Quote
If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb.

That was entirely my point.  I should have used the word "purely" instead of merely, but the same level of disdain would not have been conveyed.

Quote
Like people going into space and looking at it. 

So we see on tv, and nowhere else in reality.

Quote
Thinking it's flat without any evidence, that is dumb.

I could not agree more.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2021, 12:33:41 PM »
@timeisup

Quote
You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results?

Don't be a credential worshipping simpleton/sycophant if you can at all help it.  Having private/personal labs and doing good work in them is absolutely feasible, likewise with having no "facilities" (beyond your own) or training at all.  Demanding/expecting published journal articles in this context is stupid/ignorant, and displays a fundamental lack of awareness of what the journal publishing racket is and what it does.  Sadly we don't all want to work towards knowledge/truth/the betterment of all mankind and then to share it with everyone :( - but we f*ing should!!! Also, the absolute nonsense I could show you in "published journals" - holy hannah.

Quote
Its very easy to say you have carried out research...so where is it? how was it carried out? what was your methodology?

That it is.  My particular focus is chiefly on historical (scientific history in particular) and philological research.  My research process is much the same as other historical researchers - nothing glamorous, mostly a lot of reading.

My research findings/conclusions are what I come to share with fine folks like yourself in the earnest pursuit of truth and, failing that lofty ideal, knowledge.

Quote
The idea of the apple falling is just a nice story that has nothing to do with gravity and its validity.

That's right, it has to do with the apocryphal history of its inception/origin.  As I said, it is telling/significant that you (and most others) think it (and therefore mention it in discussion, as you did).
« Last Edit: January 08, 2021, 08:17:19 PM by jack44556677 »

*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2021, 01:49:32 PM »
@jja

Quote
If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb.

That was entirely my point.  I should have used the word "purely" instead of merely, but the same level of disdain would not have been conveyed.

Quote
Like people going into space and looking at it. 

So we see on tv, and nowhere else in reality.

Everyone who has been up there has seen it with their own eyes. But not you.

So I'm sure you also dispute the existence of the Great Pyramids, the Nile River, the top of Mt Everest and my backyard bird feeder because you personally haven't looked at them with your own eyes.  What conspiracy is out to fake the existence of the Netherlands, which I assume you haven't seen.  What organization is fooling people into thinking Nebraska exists?  Assuming you haven't been there either.

Does China exist?  Who made a billion cardboard cutouts to fake that?

Have you ever MET Putin? Checked his fingerprints and DNA to prove he's human? Is he a reptile alien?

How about whales?  Are whales real?  Have you touched one to make sure it's not a robotic submarine?

If you throw out every fact that you have not personally verified with your own eyes... then you live in a very tiny world where you know almost nothing.  And if you don't know anything, you certainly aren't an authority on the shape of world which remains a mystery to you.

You choosing to not believe any facts related to the Earth being round isn't proof of anything but your own opinion.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2021, 02:11:48 PM »
@timeisup

Quote
You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results?

Don't be a credential worshipping simpleton/sycophant if you can at all help it.  Having private/personal labs and doing good work in them is absolutely feasible, likewise with having no "facilities" (beyond your own) or training at all.  Demanding/expecting published journal articles in this context is stupid/ignorant, and displays a fundamental lack of awareness of what the journal publishing racket is and what it does.  Sadly we don't all want to work towards knowledge/truth/the betterment of all mankind and then to share it with everyone :( - but we f*ing should!!! Also, the absolute nonsense I could show you in "published journals" - holy hannah.

Quote
Its very easy to say you have carried out research...so where is it? how was it carried out? what was your methodology?

That it is.  My particular focus is chiefly on historical (scientific history in particular) and philological research.  My research process is much the same as other historical researches - nothing glamorous, mostly a lot of reading.

My research findings/conclusions are what I come to share with fine folks like yourself in the earnest pursuit of truth and, failing that lofty ideal, knowledge.

Quote
The idea of the apple falling is just a nice story that has nothing to do with gravity and its validity.

That's right, it has to do with its apocryphal history of its inception/origin.  As I said, it is telling/significant that you (and most others) think it (and therefore mention it in discussion, as you did).

So what you really mean is you read stuff off the web and call it research.

If we start with a definition of research: a detailed study of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding:

Lets start by you sharing some of your new information on gravity along with your new understanding. Lets see if you can put some 'money where your mouth is'.




Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2021, 02:13:46 PM »
Care to address the points I made?

Do you accept that regardless of what material an object is made out of, if it is large enough gravity will be strong enough to crush into a sphere, and it is only a question of what size it is?
And because of that, do you accept that trying to compare Earth to a small object like a phone, to try to say because the phone isn't spherical Earth doesn't have to be, is a completely meaningless comparison, and that instead you should be comparing it to much larger objects, like other planets, the moon and stars (including the sun).
Do you accept that UA is only equivalent to gravity in a small local frame, and that you cannot simply replace gravity with UA and expect everything to work the same outside of a small local frame (e.g. you can't replace gravity with UA for cavendish)?
And because of that, do you accept that the entire body of evidence for gravity is not evidence for UA?
Do you accept that your explanation of why things fall due to weight is entirely inadequate, that without something like gravitational potential energy it violates the conservation of energy, and that it isn't simply a case of nothing holding it up, nor is it a simple case of you applied energy to push one way so it moves back?

And you can provide a distribution of mass to produce the observed gravitational acceleration, but with a flat Earth?

(and that is ignoring the lesser points which are more semantic like if Newton was a scientist or not, if knowledge is a subset of belief, and if technology uses the fact Earth is round; as well as your implications that you have evidence to dismiss gravity even though you provided none)

Quote
If that was the ONLY reason then it would be dumb.
That was entirely my point.  I should have used the word "purely" instead of merely, but the same level of disdain would not have been conveyed.
And it would be the same strawman.
Again, even ignoring the other evidence and focusing primarily on gravity, it is not a case of gravity exists, therefore everything is a sphere.
It is a case that gravity exists, and Earth is massive. So large that gravity will almost certainly crush it into a roughly spherical shape, unless it is infinite.

You would need to appeal to magical material, never heard of, with magical properties to prevent it.

Quote
Like people going into space and looking at it. 
So we see on tv, and nowhere else in reality.
If you don't want to trust the results yourself, you can go into space yourself.
But most people aren't that paranoid.

The simple fact is that going into space is the only way to see Earth entirely in your FOV in any meaningful way. And even low orbits are not entirely useful.

If you would like a comparison, as the RE has a diameter of roughly 13 Mm and the FE has a diameter of at least 40 Mm, then trying to view Earth from a mere 100 km (0.1 Mm) would equate to trying to visually judge the size of a 2 m wide table or a 2 m wide ball from a height of 5 mm (for FE) to 1.5 cm (for RE) above its surface.
Trying to judge Earth from 1 km would be equivalent to judging the table from far less than 1 mm. (0.15 mm for RE, 0.05 for FE).
And trying to judge it from just roughly 2 m (i.e. just a normal person walking around) would be equivalent to judging the table from 100 nm for the FE or 200 nm for the RE.

Would you try to judge the shape of any normal object like that?
Or would you instead stand away from it quite some distance?

Quote
Thinking it's flat without any evidence, that is dumb.
I could not agree more.
Glad you agree your position is dumb.

Quote
You say you carry out research on gravity....Please explain. What facilities do you have and where are your published results?
Don't be a credential worshipping simpleton/sycophant
He didn't.
He didn't ask what degree you have, or what scientific institution you work at.
Instead he asked what facilities you have.

It doesn't matter if these facilities are part of a state of the art lab at a university, or jut things you have at home.
The point is that in order to meaningful research, you need some facilities.

Even a simple thing like a ruler is a facility.

Demanding/expecting published journal articles in this context is stupid/ignorant, and displays a fundamental lack of awareness of what the journal publishing racket is and what it does.
No it isn't.
It is incredible easy for someone to just spout a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.
They can even provide evidence and then make claims which are not supported by the evidence.

While peer review is not perfect, it helps to prevent that kind of wild speculation.
But yes, BS can get through.
And with standards of wanting things to be significant, some less significant things can get overlooked.

That it is.  My particular focus is chiefly on historical (scientific history in particular) and philological research.  My research process is much the same as other historical researches - nothing glamorous, mostly a lot of reading.
So nothing to actually refute gravity or the fact that Earth is round?

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2021, 08:09:07 PM »
@timeisup

Quote
So what you really mean is you read stuff off the web and call it research.

What are you, a ludite/amish? No offense intended if so, however - yes, most modern research is done on computer using the "web". Your disdain for information technology seems most out of place - perhaps you are a classicist or librarian?

Quote
Lets start by you sharing some of your new information on gravity along with your new understanding

I am not here to share new information (minimally, if any).  I'm mostly here to share old information!  As I said, my most rigorous area of study is historical analysis.  What I (and many others) have found is not new, it's old.

I have already made several statements consisting of "my", old, information in this thread - but I will try to restate/formalize for discussion :

1. Newton did not invent gravity, he invoked epicurean gravity.

2. Newton asked that his name not be associated with gravity because of how philosophically unsound it was and generally anathema to science.

3. There is no experimental validation of gravitation that exists or is possible, which newton well understood.  The theory of gravitation is unscientific by karl popper's "requisite falsifiability" criteria alone.

4. Both mass and gravity as exist in modern (supposed newtonian) equation are non-real, purely mathematical entities. Neither have any demonstrable reality, nor are they defined rigorously enough to begin.

5. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.  It is not imbued by fictional fields of any kind. It is a property of the matter itself, as archimedes understood and described.  Archimedes principle provides the backbone for the mathematical description and experimental proof of the cause of gravity (the law, not the theory of gravitation!).

6. Incorrect definitions of science, scientific method, experiment, and hypothesis are taught to the vast majority, which contributes to their inability to understand science and how it progresses historically. Many famous examples, such as the cavendish experiment - for instance, are merely observations/measurements, NOT experiments.  In the case of the cavendish observations/apparatus, no one involved with it at the time was under the illusion that it was an experiment - which is why it was never referred to as one by anyone at the time.

That should be ample for now.  I have discovered many more interesting things in my research though!

« Last Edit: January 08, 2021, 08:20:23 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2021, 08:59:40 PM »
@timeisup

There is no progress in gravitational physics of much note, and I suspect I have solved why.  There are things on the fringes with superconductors, phonons and the like but the core of gravity is still "?" as it always was ever since newton waved his magic wand and first invoked it. 

LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.  Time will tell if any of that is replicable (i.e. actually science), and the interpretation is garbage/widely publicized propaganda in any case.  It's all to confuse laypeople into thinking gravity has finally been detected (and that the "weekend at bernies" relativity theory is alive and well).  It hasn't and we wouldn't even know where or how to look for such a thing - again, IF it existed.

Quote
What makes you imagine with no more than paper and a pencil that you and some others could provide some insight that can compete with current research and that has somehow eluded the greatest minds of the last 200 years.

Brilliant insight, and especially innovation, can come from anywhere (and in the case of innovation, often has to).  In this case, they are simply digging in the wrong place.  Intellect and ability isn't as relevant when you are trying to find something that doesn't exist (but you believe MUST, due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education).

Quote
The fact is you imagine the earth is flat

Actually, no.  I imagine it COULD be, and very much appears to be locally, but I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.  Instead, my research has lead me to conclude that the world (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.

Quote
which it is clearly is not

Double-blind, this statement is untrue.  We know this from asking little children what they think the world's shape is before they have been taught otherwise.  We also know this from basic observation. The world appears flat, this is clear.  You are saying, clearly it is not BECAUSE we are taught it is not and naturally our education is flawless...

Quote
then you then proceed from that false premise trying to bend the laws of nature to fit with your false starting point.

This is a common misconception.  I empathize with it, as it is advantageous to be able to "see" through imagination - but it is important to remind yourself that you are no oracle, and all it is is imaginings. 

My experience and perspective is very different than your attempt at imagining it.  Personally, I started out with simple research questions like "When and how was gravity experimentally validated?".  One of the earlier questions I began with was "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?" - in fact that research question is still open, though the presumptive answer is sometime in the 1950's / 1960's by the american military (nasa).

Many flat earth researchers have a similar experience to mine, and many more began simply by trying to debunk and help the poor, sick, deluded "flat earthers".

************UPDATE****************

Although I would very much like to respond, this site is having issues and I have received 503 errors for 12+ hours now - could one of you please let the admins know? I believe I've sent a PM to john davis about it, but I don't know if that will reach them (or if they are the right person to contact about it)

********UPDATE2*******************

This problem appears to be thread specific.  It is only in this particular thread that I have this issue. Highly curious.

********UPDATE3*******************

It was all my fault :( I wish the site would have notified me that my comment was too long to post in one go, instead of just showing me 503 errors...
« Last Edit: January 09, 2021, 12:00:29 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2021, 10:05:04 PM »
Again, care to address the points I made? Or will you just ignore them as if your claims haven't been refuted?

yes, most modern research is done on computer using the "web".
Not primary scientific research.
That requires doing experiments to obtain data.
It would only be secondary research that can be done like that, were you look at the data and results of others.

3. There is no experimental validation of gravitation that exists or is possible, which newton well understood.  The theory of gravitation is unscientific by karl popper's "requisite falsifiability" criteria alone.
Pure BS.
While that may have been the case for Newton, it is not now.
There is plenty of experimental verification for gravity, and it is quite falsifiable (at the hypothetical level, i.e. being able to do an experiment and testing predictions from gravity, where if those predictions are false, then gravity is wrong).

And it is far more falsifiable than things just magically falling for no reason at all.

4. Both mass and gravity as exist in modern (supposed newtonian) equation are non-real, purely mathematical entities. Neither have any demonstrable reality, nor are they defined rigorously enough to begin.
Again, pure BS.
Ignoring the mass-energy equivalence, mass is quite real as easily measured due to inertia. Likewise, the force, real or apparent, produced by gravity can cause an object to accelerate or can be measured as a force such as on a scale.

5. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.  It is not imbued by fictional fields of any kind. It is a property of the matter itself, as archimedes understood and described.  Archimedes principle provides the backbone for the mathematical description and experimental proof of the cause of gravity (the law, not the theory of gravitation!).
You have no cause. You just claim things magically fall for no reason at all.

Why should things just fall for no reason at all?

Many famous examples, such as the cavendish experiment - for instance, are merely observations/measurements, NOT experiments.
So something even you call an experiment, you say is not an experiment.

but the core of gravity is still "?" as it always was ever since newton waved his magic wand and first invoked it.
And the same could be said of all fundamental forces. Ultimately you will reach a point where we simply don't know.
Why do charges attract or repel one another?
Sure, you can appeal to an electric field, just like you can appeal to a gravitational field or the curvature of spacetime.
But then there is the question of why does a charge create a field in the first place? And why does it interact with that field?

Does that mean you likewise reject all of science and instead just appeal to the magic of "innate properties"?
Or is it only gravity you look at with such distain?

LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.
They sure seem to be measuring them.
Could you explain why you think they cannot measure gravitational waves?

Instead, my research has lead me to conclude that the world (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.
You mean your history and language (or did you mean philosophy) research, which has absolutely no bearing on the shape of Earth and could not possibly indicate Earth cannot be spherical?

Quote
which it is clearly is not
Double-blind, this statement is untrue.  We know this from asking little children what they think the world's shape is before they have been taught otherwise.  We also know this from basic observation. The world appears flat, this is clear.  You are saying, clearly it is not BECAUSE we are taught it is not and naturally our education is flawless...
And again, stated with all the certainty of a religious zealot.
We know Earth isn't flat and instead is roughly spherical, due the abundant evidence indicating that.
Sure, not everyone will, the vast majority of people will just accept Earth is round due to being taught that in school and not being so paranoid to think there is massive global conspiracy to fake all the evidence that Earth is round and thus accept the photos from space provided by many different space agencies.
But that doesn't mean everyone is like that.
Plenty of people actually understand the evidence and have obtained at least some of the evidence themselves.

We say it is clearly not because plenty of observations do not match a flat Earth.

And it doesn't take going to space to find out Earth is round. That is just the simplest as you can see the object from quite some distance and determine its shape directly, just like if I held out a ball and spun it around.

One of the earlier questions I began with was "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?" - in fact that research question is still open, though the presumptive answer is sometime in the 1950's / 1960's by the american military (nasa).
Then you aren't very good at history.
While it is still an open question, that is due to how ancient it is.
The Ancient Greeks new Earth was round. They were even capable of determining a way to measure the radius of Earth.
We likely wont know who first determined the world was roughly a sphere, nor exactly what their reasons for doing so were.
But we do know it was long before NASA.
But thanks for showing you think RE is just a big NASA conspiracy.
It was an experiment. It tested a hypothesis and at the same time provided a measurement.
Before it was done it was not able to create a numerical prediction, as the value of G was not known, but it did still have the prediction of a particular way the masses would interact due to gravity.
If this wasn't the case, they would not have been able to get a value of G out of the experiment, or it would be deemed to be below the experimental detection limit, with the latter potentially having serious implications for Earth and raising serious red flags for gravity.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2021, 01:26:54 AM »
@timeisup

There is no progress in gravitational physics of much note, and I suspect I have solved why.  There are things on the fringes with superconductors, phonons and the like but the core of gravity is still "?" as it always was ever since newton waved his magic wand and first invoked it. 

LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.  Time will tell if any of that is replicable (i.e. actually science), and the interpretation is garbage/widely publicized propaganda in any case.  It's all to confuse laypeople into thinking gravity has finally been detected (and that the "weekend at bernies" relativity theory is alive and well).  It hasn't and we wouldn't even know where or how to look for such a thing - again, IF it existed.

Quote
What makes you imagine with no more than paper and a pencil that you and some others could provide some insight that can compete with current research and that has somehow eluded the greatest minds of the last 200 years.

Brilliant insight, and especially innovation, can come from anywhere (and in the case of innovation, often has to).  In this case, they are simply digging in the wrong place.  Intellect and ability isn't as relevant when you are trying to find something that doesn't exist (but you believe MUST, due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education).

Quote
The fact is you imagine the earth is flat

Actually, no.  I imagine it COULD be, and very much appears to be locally, but I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.  Instead, my research has lead me to conclude that the world (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.

Quote
which it is clearly is not

Double-blind, this statement is untrue.  We know this from asking little children what they think the world's shape is before they have been taught otherwise.  We also know this from basic observation. The world appears flat, this is clear.  You are saying, clearly it is not BECAUSE we are taught it is not and naturally our education is flawless...

Quote
then you then proceed from that false premise trying to bend the laws of nature to fit with your false starting point.

This is a common misconception.  I empathize with it, as it is advantageous to be able to "see" through imagination - but it is important to remind yourself that you are no oracle, and all it is is imaginings. 

My experience and perspective is very different than your attempt at imagining it.  Personally, I started out with simple research questions like "When and how was gravity experimentally validated?".  One of the earlier questions I began with was "Who first determined the world was spherical, when, and by what method?" - in fact that research question is still open, though the presumptive answer is sometime in the 1950's / 1960's by the american military (nasa).

Many flat earth researchers have a similar experience to mine, and many more began simply by trying to debunk and help the poor, sick, deluded "flat earthers".

In a nutshell, you are a conspiracy proponent at your core who trawls the net looking for little cherry like snippets that can be stitched together to create some alternate reality that reflects your own belief where the truth is irrelevant.

To internally firm your foundations  and create your alternate reality you make unsupported claims about the greatest minds in history and then claim some of the most technologically complex experiments that have been put together are bogus! Along with a string of other claims regarding the old chestnut NASA! This is the oldest ploy in history  discredit your opponents to make yourself appear to be on firmer ground.
The other is to bend the truth and tell blatant lies.

For example you claim:
no progress is being made in gravitation research!
You claim LIGO and its research are bogus and worthless
You then make it sound as though you have some authority in the fields you speak about when in reality you have none.

Letís have some honesty here. Letís start by you explaining your claim regarding LIGO. How have you determined itís a fraud?


*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2021, 04:48:43 AM »
LIGO is a widely publicized fraud.  Interferometers, no matter how large, do not measure gravity nor gravitational (gravity and gravitational waves are separate and distinct) waves if by some chance such things happened to be real.

Citation needed.

Care to list all these widely publicized allegations of fraud?

And what exactly are the differences between 'gravity waves' and 'gravitational waves' and where are you getting your definitions?

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2021, 10:09:24 AM »
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

I hope you do not take offense, you provided me with a LOT to respond to.  I mean to respond in kind, though life gets in the way...

Quote
And just why do you think it is dumb?
It is quite sound.

Because it is an insane and unjustifiable leap to say that purely because gravity exists the earth must be spherical.  It just doesn't follow.  When steeped in the mythology, it makes some sense - but not objectively in and of itself (the statement proper).

Quote
The are only a few main forces holding objects together:

So far that we have divined, yes.  Gravity is not a force (it's also not measurable or real, but I digress).  Not to modern physicists anyhow.

Quote
But it isn't that simple, that puts the entire system under pressure and typically results in the object being more dense that it would be without gravity, increasing it even more. Eventually you have enough gravity to overcome the electromagnetic force and have the object collapse.And this applies regardless of the shape.

This is one of many paradoxes/holes in the nonsense of gravitation.  If everything pulls everything - where is the reference point?  If I am in the center of the earth, am I crushed by the weight of both sides, weightless because the forces balance, or torn apart by the massive gravity of each hemisphere?  Don't bother to answer, unless you think you can demonstrate it - otherwise this is a rhetorical/"how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" question. 

Quote
If you keep doing this, you will eventually reach a large enough pressure to cause the object to fail.

Right, and then it will crumple and fold.  No reason for spheres and that's probably a reason why we see so few of them in nature.

Quote
This means that gravity will create a maximum size to any object, and it is only a question of what that size is.

Uh oh - that's black hole talk.  It's like the nihilism of physics.  Turn back, seek the light.

Lol, I hear you loud and clear.   Personally, I stand with einstein on this one - black holes are mathematical fiction.  Sure things can be too large to support their weight, but gravity isn't real and is unneeded to describe the phenomenon anyhow (mathematically or otherwise).


Quote
Find me an object in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which is not roughly spherical.

Oceans, lakes, the sky, clouds, mountains, deserts, bedrock, valleys, hilltops... jeeze, maybe I should try it from the other direction.  What is in nature, hundreds to thousands of km wide, which IS roughly spherical? Nothing in this world it would seem :(

Quote
You know, at the size range that gravity would crush it into a sphere. (which for rocky material is roughly 600 km.)

It would depend on the material properties, spacing, and orientation.  A sphere - or sphere-ish is a possible outcome, I agree - but the initial shape and structure would likely need to be sphere-ish too to expect that outcome.

Quote
So you should easily be able to provide one, rather than just telling me to use my imagination.

That's true! I could do that!  But why? It's your hang-up - though I'm happy to try and help in any way I can.  You seem to be ever-so-coyly intimating that you disagree with what I have explained to you so far regarding this question.  There isn't only one configuration that could be compatible/consistent with what we observe, especially if you consider, potentially, the known world to be subset of the total (yet unexplored / unknown) world.

Quote
Yes, you seem to just be interested in discarding reality with no just cause and coming up with whatever excuses you can to pretend it all works fine.

Everything is not always as it seems.  I know you imagine this to be the case, but this is not my perspective or experience.  In point of fact it is I who am accusing you of discarding reality, but it will take time to flesh that out / establish that.

Quote
See if you actually cared about the truth you would be interested in developing a model which explains all that the mainstream model already explains.

You misunderstand what models are and what they are for.  They are not for explanation (though occasionally they can be used for that), and they most certainly are not for determining the shape of any physical object with certainty.  Models are meta-scientific tools, nothing more.  All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful for a time.

Quote
You have had that time. People thought Earth was flat before they realised it was round.

This isn't really true.  It is propaganda we are all taught as the result of an american fiction writer from the 19th century.  No culture or peoples thought the world was flat in the historical record.

Quote
But a big issue with developing the model and it taking so long was new phenomenon being discovered and better measurements being able to more accurately determine things and being able to travel all over the world.

Again, no science of technology depends on the shape of the earth.  The means of conveyance to travel the world do not depend on its sphericity, nor were they created because of it.

Quote
You have all that now, and thus it shouldn't take you anywhere near as long.

You misunderstand, there is no tool available to us now that lets us measure the sphericity of the entire world any more than there was then.  It is not fundamentally easier for an individual person with all their wondrous modern technology to go out and measure the world today than it was millennia ago. It is a fantastically huge undertaking, and one that has been neglected for all of human history.

Quote
They are the hypothesis which is tested to check if it matches reality.
Unless you are making models and testing them, you aren't doing science.

No, hypotheses are hypotheses.  Models are models.  They are not synonyms nor interchangeable.  You aren't doing science unless you are rigorously adhering to the scientific method!

Quote
That is a very limited view.

It is an undeniable fact, bordering on tautology.  There is no other method to determine the shape of physical objects with certainty.

Quote
There is no tool in existence like a tape measure which can simply measure Earth.

Exactly what I was saying above! Not simply - no, but of course a tiny spoon can scoop the ocean given enough time. Working together, many hands make light work.

Quote
The best you can do is a tool which measures small portions of Earth, which then has errors with combining it into a much larger MODEL

Model (the word) isn't usually used that way in a scientific context, though you are not technically wrong.  Typically that would be called a composite.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with taking some measurements one day, and others the next.  At the end you have measurements, which you can use to make a model if you wish for some further purpose - but what you collect are measurments.

Quote
The closest you could get to direct measurements are satellites taking pictures of Earth from many angles (which show it is round). Even then it is still a model.

Pictures make poor "measurements".  They are inferential at best and subject to many known sources of error.  Many times what is seen is not what is, and direct measurement is always required when good accuracy is as well.

Quote
The more sane and scientific approach

There is only one of those, it is called the scientific method, and though it has many flavors none of them involve a "model" step.  The scientific method has no use in determining the shape of physical objects. Only rigorous and repeated measurement can do that (even if those measurements must be taken in sections over time, due to the size of the object)
« Last Edit: January 09, 2021, 10:37:42 AM by jack44556677 »