The case for Gravity and UA

  • 85 Replies
  • 4537 Views
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2021, 05:00:21 PM »
@jja

Quote
You still haven't answered where you are getting your definition of 'gravitation' from. What is your source?

That's true, I haven't answered that question directly - because it isn't relevant, as I explained. The answer is: the same place everyone else does. 

My point was about the common mistaking of scientific theory (gravitation - regardless of what definition you ascribe to) and law (gravity).

Quote
You can't just redefine words and make up definitions

As you well know, I both can and do.  We all do, but I am conscious  and honest about it.

Quote
to present as evidence for your ideas.

What I am doing (in this specific case) is explaining that the definitions are commonly misunderstood and conflated - for one reason because people are not often aware of the distinction between scientific law and theory.

You cannot even begin a discussion or proper evaluation of science without the proper (and commonly agreed upon, at least for the localized purposes of this discussion) definitions first.

*

JJA

  • 5120
  • Math is math!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2021, 06:26:55 PM »
@jja

Quote
You still haven't answered where you are getting your definition of 'gravitation' from. What is your source?

That's true, I haven't answered that question directly - because it isn't relevant, as I explained. The answer is: the same place everyone else does. 

My point was about the common mistaking of scientific theory (gravitation - regardless of what definition you ascribe to) and law (gravity).

It's entirely relevant if you're claiming everyone is wrong about gravity, because you decided to call it gravitation and it means something special to you, but you can't explain it. Feelings aren't evidence.

Theories of gravity work just fine for the rest of us. It doesn't stop working just because you decide to change it's definition or say so.  I'm afraid GPS satellites are still up there in orbit no matter how hard you fixate on the word 'gravitation'.

It just looks like you're avoiding talking about details because you don't have any. When you have a working theory of gravity that can predict events with higher accuracy than Newton or Einstein, let us know. I'll even polish your Nobel prize for you, I've been told that helps. :)

Quote
You can't just redefine words and make up definitions

As you well know, I both can and do.  We all do, but I am conscious  and honest about it.

Ok, let me rephrase.

You can't just redefine terms and make up words and expect to have a rational discussion or make any valid points at all.

If you can't even agree on that, no wonder nothing you say makes any sense.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2021, 03:39:56 AM »
My point was about the common mistaking of scientific theory (gravitation - regardless of what definition you ascribe to) and law (gravity).
And you are making that mistake.
It is the universal law of gravitation, which was a key part of the early theory of gravitation.

As you well know, I both can and do.  We all do, but I am conscious  and honest about it.
Not when you pretend they mean completely different things to pretend other people said things they didn't.


for one reason because people are not often aware of the distinction between scientific law and theory.
And you don't seem to know the distinction.
You act like gravity is a law and thus it must be 100% true, while gravitation is a theory which means it is just guesswork with no evidence supporting it.

A scientific law is typically a mathematical statement which is part of a theory.
A single theory can have many laws as parts of it.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2021, 03:15:28 AM »
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
But even mapping just continents and having a rough idea of the distances between them will allow one to show that Earth cannot be flat and instead must be roughly spherical.

No, only measuring can do that.  Mapping is for an entirely different purpose.  When we measure for mapping, we don't do so to determine shape.

Quote
Likewise, with solar filter and solar scopes, we can easily establish the sun must be very far away and quite large, from simultaneous observations of it from around Earth and throughout the day. Then using the angle to the sun we can quickly establish just how large this round Earth must be.

Completely wrong, but commonly taught.  Looking up to determine what is down is unscientific and powerful stupid.  Parrallax does not work for long distances, and never works with the lights in the sky.

Quote
We can also measure things like the transit of Venus, or just the direct distance to Venus using radar to establish the size of orbits.

Also commonly taught.  Just fiction.  The radar returns from venus (supposedly) are an interesting claim, the rest is astronomical/cosmological fiction built on millennia of it.

Quote
And if we still have satellites, or the technology to make them/go to space, we still have literal pictures from space showing us Earth and how all the continents are arranged.

So we are meant to believe.  We see pictures/tv, and we are meant to believe/mistake it is real.

Quote
Yes, it is still a large undertaking, but it is vastly easier to do now than it was to do through history.

For the individual it is roughly the same now as ever.  That was my whole point.

Quote
A hypothesis can be either an extremely simple and almost worthless statement, or an actual model. So models do have a big role in the scientific method.

No, they have no role and no place in the scientific method - by definition.  They are meta scientific tools for specific purpose, nothing more.  Hypotheses may be derived or influenced from models, but hypotheses are not models and the two words are separate and distinct for good reason.

Quote
It is a quite deniable, false assertion.

No, it's a plain undeniable fact.  That's why you are flapping your gums, instead of just responding with another method.  There is no other method.  Just the one.  Rigorous and repeated measurement is the only method to determine the shape of physical objects in reality.  This is not arguable.

Quote
The closest you have for a direct measurement of the entire Earth,

Actually, no.  I agree with you, that the closest we have to measurement of the entire earth are measurements of pieces of it that we can create composites from.  Incidentally this IS how most of the artwork produced by nasa (disingenuously as "photos") is produced, but I am leaving satellites and satellite derived data out of the discussion for the time being (unless you insist).

Quote
Even the more "direct" methods still use a reference surface and measure relative to that.

I do appreciate that, and recognize the thin line I am walking.  This is not some semantical trick or debate tactic.  The intent and purpose is NOT in any way to discard or ignore existing measurements.

Quote
You mean the evidence based gravity/gravitation that you don't like.

No, I mean that which does not exist.  This is an in depth physics (and history thereof) discussion, which will take more exploration to become clear!  That is, if you wish to understand - which you may not.

Quote
Is that things just float as there is no reason for them to fall.

Of course not, don't be silly.  What's left, is what was left before!  The stupid and unscientific idea of gravitation is only a few hundred years old.  It is fantastically naive and displays profound bias/ignorance to think that man had no reason for things to fall prior to its creation, or would have none when it was to be once again relegated to obscurity (as it was in newton's time, when he invoked it).

Quote
Already demonstrated that doesn't work as if it did, the energy used to push something to the right should cause it to move to the left.
You seemed to ignore that entirely.

I answered it, but it didn't take because of your indoctrination in one particular framework.  I shall try again - education is a slow process and is not to be rushed.

Things have weight.  Weight is resistance to motion.  Things do not fall because they are "returning" where they originally were. The cardinal directions of up and down are no more explained than the matter itself or its intrinsic properties (of which weight is but one)

Quote
Rather than conserving energy you are destroying it and creating it.

That would be a violation.  You are clearly misunderstanding something.  Could you please walk me through your reasoning on this statement with an example? What I am describing (unlike relativity) is consistent and in accordance with the law of conservation.

Quote
Not when simply made as a claim with no justification or evidence at all.

The inquisitive mind of the student is never sated.  Maybe it's just me, but when I hear wild claims, I WANT to investigate them.  If you can't investigate them or won't accept any amount of justification or evidence - then your days of learning (being a student) are through.

Quote
And as I keep pointing out, you are providing a replacement even if you don't want it to be one. Not providing a replacement would be saying we have no idea why things fall at all.

I am not providing a replacement.  The previous "replacement"/conception exists, and I am merely reminding you of that historical and scientific fact.  Accepting my research conclusions, you are well within your rights to conclude that we have no idea why things fall.  Even without accepting my research conclusions, and believing everything about the presumptive model - you would STILL be well within reason to argue that humanity has no f*ing idea why things fall. We have a placeholder for that knowledge, called "gravitation" but it is as empty now as it was when newton first invoked it.  The core of gravitation (the supposed cause of gravity - the law) is, and always was, "?".  It has been for centuries, and it will likely persist as long as gravitation does (and I know why ;)

Quote
The simplest is a setup akin to the cavendish experiment, which you can find all over youtube.
But less direct are all the satellites used for GPS.
And there is plenty more in the scientific literature. Unless you are planning on dismissing it all as fake?

These are worth discussing and evaluating further.  It is important to recognize that earnest flat earth research (sadly, the minority in my experience) never involves denialism.  Almost every data/experiment/observation that exists has alternative explanation/interpretation - at least in potentia.  So it is with the examples you mentioned.  They aren't fake, they are simply misinterpreted.  Most often this is due to unvalidated assumption which is required by the interpretation.

Quote
It doesn't need to be an entity to be real.

It needs to be measurable to be a part of empirical science.  This is one reason (of many) gravitation is not a (and can never be a) part of science.

Quote
Pure semantics.

True.  Science is a branch of philosophy.  Even if it weren't, the specific/explicit and common definitions of technical vernacular are crucial and not to be regarded flippantly.  These words have definitions, and although the vast majority only learn incorrect ones - better late than never I always say!

Quote
An attempt to separate things falling from the universal attraction of mass, to pretend that one is real while the other is fake.
They are the same thing. Gravity is caused by gravitation, and gravity can also refer to gravitation in general.

You misunderstand.  Gravity is a natural law, gravitation is a theory.  Natural law and theory have separate and distinct definitions in science.  I am not separating anything.  Science makes these distinctions, not me.  It is by definition; i.e. semantical.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 05:26:32 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2021, 03:16:02 AM »
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
You mean the universal law of gravitation?

No! I mean gravity, the natural law.  The tendency for things that are lifted up, to come back down.

Quote
A law is a mathematical relationship.

Actually, no.  Scientific law isn't required to involve mathematics.  Most of the mathematical formulations of laws we use to day were "backfilled" retroactively.

Quote
Rejecting all that you just have "things fall", no constant rate (as it varies around Earth, another big thing falling being intrinsic can't explain), no explanation for the variation in rate.

All of the explanation is wanted, not needed.  Much of the explanation is already contained in archimedes principle, and as for the infinitesimal variances there exist MANY ways to interpret those through existing/known phenomena (and some more interesting / theoretical options for unknown/hypothetical ones)

Quote
And according to some, that law can be part of a hypothesis, not yet actually tested.
But to test it you need to make predictions based upon that law and then check if they match what is observed.

Thankfully these words already have rigorous definitions, as they are technical vernacular used for vocation.  Law can be included in hypothesis (anything can), but hypotheses and laws are separate and distinct.  (Natural) Law is merely behavior that we consistently observe/measure.  Hypothesis is the hypothetical/proposed cause of an observed phenomenon for the singular purpose of experimental validation.

Quote
So you accept that gravity and gravitation are real?

Gravity is very real, as I've said repeatedly - it is a natural/scientific law!

Gravitation is utter fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever. It isn't fake, it's fiction.  I don't propose that newton was lying, I propose that he was wrong (as he was about most other things)

Quote
You repeatedly dismiss that evidence for it when you claim it has no experimental or empirical support.

I am aware of the mistaken "evidence" for it, which is not dismissed - merely reinterpreted. It is well worth discussing further.

Quote
You aren't even showing anything wrong with it

I am, but you already know most of what's wrong with it.  They teach you a lot about its shortcoming when you are "educated", in part, to prepare you to play apologist.  The primary challenge here is one of education.  It takes time, and needs to happen in its due course.  By asking specific questions, you stand the best chance of getting specific answers that might help you better understand.

I could list 100 things "wrong" with it, and so could any physicist for the past 3 centuries.  There is more wrong with it than there is right at the current date, and it will only get worse from here.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #65 on: January 23, 2021, 04:13:15 AM »
No, only measuring can do that.
Mapping is measuring and allows you to determine the gaussian curvature, which is a very big part of the shape.

Quote
Quote
Likewise, with solar filter and solar scopes, we can easily establish the sun must be very far away and quite large, from simultaneous observations of it from around Earth and throughout the day. Then using the angle to the sun we can quickly establish just how large this round Earth must be.
Completely wrong
Just what is wrong about it?

You thinking it is stupid doesn't magically make it so.

Quote
Parrallax does not work for long distances, and never works with the lights in the sky.
Why not?
What magic causes it to no longer work?

Quote
astronomical/cosmological fiction built on millennia of it.
You mean it shows you are wrong so you reject it.
Dismissing it as fiction doesn't magically make it so.

Quote
For the individual it is roughly the same now as ever.  That was my whole point.
And it is still wrong.

Quote
No, they have no role and no place in the scientific method - by definition.
Again, just continually rejecting stuff like that won't help your case.
They allow you to make predictions which can then be tested.
You are going to need more than just your continually dismissal to convince any sane person.

Quote
No, it's a plain undeniable fact.
Then why did I just deny it, and also explain why it is wrong?
You need more than just repeating the same assertion to justify your claim.

Quote
Quote
The closest you have for a direct measurement of the entire Earth, are photos from space
Actually, no.  I agree with you
So you accept the photos?

Quote
this IS how most of the artwork produced by nasa (disingenuously as "photos") is produced
No, those which are composites are typically clearly indicated as such. Meanwhile they are plenty of actual photos, such as those from GEOS and DSCOVR (as well as other agencies).

Quote
I am leaving satellites and satellite derived data out of the discussion for the time being (unless you insist).
Why should we leave out the only thing you are saying is good enough to determine the shape of Earth?
The only way to do that is if you admit there are alternatives, and that we can indirectly determine the shape of Earth, such as by measuring the distance between locations on its surface, or by using the stars/sky.

Quote
The intent and purpose is NOT in any way to discard or ignore existing measurements.
It sure seems to be. Because those existing measurements show beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.

Quote
Quote
You mean the evidence based gravity/gravitation that you don't like.
No, I mean that which does not exist.
You wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

Quote
The stupid and unscientific idea
The stupid and unscientific idea is that things just fall for no reason at all, or that everything has a natural place and will try to go back to its place.

The scientific and not-stupid idea is gravitation.

Quote
I answered it
No, you dodged it.
You claimed things fall because you give them energy when you lift them up.
If that was the case then things should fall to the left when you give them energy by pushing them to the right.

So no, the energy used to lift things DOES NOT MAKE THEM FALL!

And calling me indoctrinated because I don't accept your BS and can explain why it is wrong is just a pathetic insult which doesn't help the discussion at all and indicates that you aren't really interested in a discussion and more just want to attack science and reality without any argument against either.

Quote
Things have weight.  Weight is resistance to motion.
No, it isn't. They are 2 fundamentally different things.
Weight is a downwards force which causes an object to accelerate towards the ground.
Resistance to motion is actually resistance to change in motion. This is based upon mass.
We can also tell that it isn't weight because weight varies with location while mass remains the same.
Again, ignoring this does not help your case. It just shows you have no interest in reality.

Quote
Things do not fall because they are "returning" where they originally were.
Again, they aren't.
If I move something to the right, it doesn't move back to the left from where it originally came.

Quote
intrinsic properties (of which weight is but one)
Again, if that was the case, weight wouldn't vary.

Quote
Could you please walk me through your reasoning on this statement with an example?
An object moves upwards upwards with a particular kinetic energy. It magically slows down with that kinetic energy being destroyed.
Then it reaches its peak and have 0 kinetic energy.
Then it starts falling back down, increasing its velocity and having energy created from nothing.

Without gravitational potential energy, you have a violation of the conservation of energy.

Quote
Maybe it's just me, but when I hear wild claims, I WANT to investigate them.
To me, it depends on what the claims are.
If they claims are wild and appear to be based upon wilful rejection of reality, especially when made without evidence, I will be more likely to just dismiss them and move on.

Quote
If you can't investigate them or won't accept any amount of justification or evidence - then your days of learning (being a student) are through.
Good thing I didn't say I wouldn't accept justification and evidence and instead pointed out that the claims were made without that.

Quote
I am not providing a replacement.  The previous "replacement"/conception exists
Which is still a replacement, which you are still providing.

Quote
The core of gravitation (the supposed cause of gravity - the law) is, and always was, "?"
Just like every other fundamental force.
Again, do you reject all of them?

Quote
Almost every data/experiment/observation that exists has alternative explanation/interpretation - at least in potentia.
Yes, where you throw in a bunch of elaborate overcomplicated BS to try to keep what you think is true matching.
I will prefer to stick to the simpler options.

But i do notice that you don't give such an alternative.

Quote
It needs to be measurable to be a part of empirical science.
And gravitation/gravity meets that just fine.
It is measurable.
Again, repeating the same lie again and again just shows you do not give a daman about reality and that your position is based upon a wilful rejection of reality.

Quote
These words have definitions
And the definitions vary depending on context.
They are not as rigorously defined as you would like.

Quote
You misunderstand.  Gravity is a natural law, gravitation is a theory.
No, you continue to reject reality.
Gravity is gravitation.
There is the universal law of gravitation. This is a scientific law, backed up by mountains of evidence that you choose to reject without cause.
You are the one making the distinction, not science. All so you can pretend one is real and the other is fake.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #66 on: January 23, 2021, 04:24:12 AM »
Quote
You mean the universal law of gravitation?
No! I mean gravity, the natural law.
The law for gravity, is the law for gravitation. F=GMm/r^2.
Unless you want to get to GR.

Quote
Actually, no.  Scientific law isn't required to involve mathematics.  Most of the mathematical formulations of laws we use to day were "backfilled" retroactively.
Us making up nice formulae for them doesn't mean they didn't involve math.
You can express the same mathematical relationship with words.

Quote
All of the explanation is wanted, not needed.
And much of hte explanation is already known.
Masses attract other masses. Things fall because of the great mass of Earth.

Quote
Much of the explanation is already contained in archimedes principle
That contains no explanation at all.
That merely states that an object will displace its own weight in a fluid.
It doesn't explain why it has weight in the first place.
It doesn't explain why the weight varies around Earth.
It doesn't even explain why it is directed down.

And again, it is quite trivial to show this principle using gravity.

Are you confusing this with Aristotle's idea of everything having a natural place?
Where magically that place only applies up and down?

Quote
as for the infinitesimal variances
We are not discussing infintesimal variances.
We are discussing a variation of ~ 0.05 m/s^2. That is a quite large varation.

Quote
there exist MANY ways to interpret those through existing/known phenomena
Stop just asserting that and provide some.

Currently there is one very simple way:
Graivty causes things to fall, and as Earth rotates on its axis, it causes an apparent reduction in weight, and causes Earth to be oblate, causing a greater distance to the centre of mass of Earth and thus a smaller acceleration.

So what alternative can you provide?
And remember, your ideas about seismic activity and the air have already been refuted.

Quote
Thankfully these words already have rigorous definitions
And where can we find these definitions from an official source rather than just you?

Because the way I was taught was that a law was a mathematical statement, while a hypothesis does not need to be.

So just what official source are you using? And what makes that the definitive source, rather that it just being its opinion on what these words mean?

Quote
Gravitation is utter fiction with no demonstrable reality whatsoever.
i.e. you are dismissing it as fake.
I don't care if you want to pretend that calling it fiction isn't saying it is fake. Again, it is semantic BS that is avoiding the point.

Quote
I am aware of the mistaken "evidence" for it, which is not dismissed - merely reinterpreted.
All you have provided is dismissal. You haven't provided any reinterpretation.

Quote
Quote
You aren't even showing anything wrong with it
I am
No, you aren't.
You are calling it fiction and falsely claiming there is no evidnece for it.
The closest you caim to showing there was a problem with it was falsely claiming there is a pardox with gravity, which I then refuted and showed exactly what you would expect with gravity, which you haven't responded to yet.

So no, you aren't showing anything wrong with it.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #67 on: January 23, 2021, 05:51:43 AM »
@timeisup

Quote
That is most defiantly not the case.

I don't know if this is a typo or not, but I like it!

Quote
The arguments you use are very narrow forgetting about how interconnected everything is.

The scientific facts we are evaluating are very narrow, and the "interconnected"-ness you speak of is a foundational part of a narrative mythological fiction (creation myth), misrepresented as science from childhood.  I am not saying there isn't interconnectedness to reality, I am saying that we humans see interconnected "wholeness" even (and perhaps especially) when it is not there and that this IS cognitive dissonance (though this is woefully misunderstood by most).  Much like our conception of the field of view that makes up our sight : we THINK we see an interconnected whole - but what we ACTUALLY see are discreet packets/slices of the totality of what can be seen and the majority of the world we think we inhabit is filled in programmatically by the mind.  The wholeness is an illusion the mind creates on and of its own, and it manifests/reflects itself in mythology too.  When you reach your hand out to grasp at this perceived/supposed "interconnectedness" you find that it isn't really there - we just expect it is and see it that way.

Quote
I don't see how the earth as we know and experience it could be flat.

Allow me to try and help!  IF the world is flat, then everything we know and experience occurs on a flat earth.  Most of the things you mentioned have nothing to do with the actual shape of the world, and the other things are just creation mythology disingenuously represented as science since childhood.

Quote
How would you explain the difference between the lack of any other flat structure in the solar system

The solar system and universe are supposed/observed to be anti-isotropically (against prediction and expectation) flat.  But in any case, looking up to determine what is the opposite direction is unscientific and stupid.  The objects we observe (lights in the sky) are presumed far too distant to make any certain determinations as to size/shape/composition.  We can speculate sure, and astronomers have been doing just that and building on it for millennia - however, that is not a scientific process and the product of that speculation is pseudoscience mythology we misrepresent as science to children.

Even if we were certain of what we were seeing, and their shapes, it would not necessarily have relevance to the shape of the thing WE are standing on.  That only seems like a ridiculous assertion when you are steeped in the mythology from childhood.

Quote
what forces would produce seven spherical planets along with hundreds of spherical moons and one flat planet!

There are no rodenberrian "planets", that's all sci-fi tv nonsense.  There is the earth, and then there are lights in the sky that we don't really understand.  The idea that they too are "terra firma" is a very modern view, first created and driven by fiction and hollywood.  It should be ultimately unsurprising that we were wrong about such lofty and non-terrestrial (inconsequential) things.

Quote
Why were the laws of physics out to lunch when the earth formed?

Again, you are simply failing to rationalize your mythology.  The laws of physics do not explain planetary formation, in any way.  Our creation mythology purported that they did, but we were lied to.

Quote
Mars is good example of what happens when a planetary body looses most of its magnetic field, the solar wind strips away any atmosphere and any water boils off into space.

So we see on tv, yes.  In reality, it is just a light in the sky that we don't understand.

Quote
According to what we know about magnetic field generation a flat stationary earth would simply not be capable of producing a magnetic field. Take away our magnetic field and all life on earth would be no more.

What we know about magnetic field generation is a MAJOR problem for the presumptive mythology/model.  This is regardless of the shape of the world.  The "space born doom" thing is little more than fear porn for manipulation purposes.  The sky is falling chicken little, give me more funding.

Quote
How do you explain the formation of a flat planet that is capable of generating a magnetic field?

Science should aim high, but at the end of the day it only consists of what we can study.  We can't study the formation of the earth, regardless of what shape it is.  Again, you just want something to replace the defunct creation mythology you've had as a pacifier since childhood.  No more pacifier, instead - get more comfortable with honesty.  The answer to the vast majority of questions is "we don't know".

Quote
What are the mechanisms you are suggesting that are currently unknown to science?

Many, but none that I'm suggesting.  Everything works the same way if the world is flat.  This is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.

*

JJA

  • 5120
  • Math is math!
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #68 on: January 23, 2021, 05:51:48 AM »
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
But even mapping just continents and having a rough idea of the distances between them will allow one to show that Earth cannot be flat and instead must be roughly spherical.

No, only measuring can do that.  Mapping is for an entirely different purpose.  When we measure for mapping, we don't do so to determine shape.

So where are you getting your definition of mapping and measuring from? Please provide a reference to where mapping can't determine the shape.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2021, 09:25:47 AM »
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
Mapping is measuring and allows you to determine the gaussian curvature, which is a very big part of the shape.

Lol, fair enough.  I meant mapping in the non mathematical context, of making maps.  Cartography.  Of course topographical maps exist, but even these do not measure the "curve" of the oceans, or large lakes, or salt flats - chiefly because it isn't there to measure and only slightly secondarily because there is widely believed to be no need to.

Quote
Just what is wrong about it? You thinking it is stupid doesn't magically make it so.

That's true, and in general I should probably try to avoid subjective language like "stupid". I do it purely rhetorically, as if that makes it better.

The likely (as I really would have to ask you for specific procedure detail before I commented) answer to your valid and justified question is that we may not know the bounds of the earth :(.

Quote
What magic causes it to no longer work?

Fortunately, I do not believe in magic and so instead I expect it has to do with what we are looking at and what we are looking at it through (rather than the optical / physical laws changing on some distance scale etc.).  All I know is, that we expect that it should work - and with the lights in the sky, it doesn't.  It gives wacky answers (like the 3000 mile figure for the sun) and is consistently and increasingly unreliable as the scale increases. 

Quote
You mean it shows you are wrong so you reject it.
Dismissing it as fiction doesn't magically make it so.

True.  Likewise your fervency and certainty in its reality (due to having been taught that through conditioning by rote under the guise of education), does not magically make it real.  We seem to agree that the default position is best one of skepticism.

Quote
And it is still wrong.

I think you are just saying that to disagree. You get my point, and agree with it as evidenced by other statements. It is not an insignificant task to measure a whole world, and it isn't a whole heck of a lot easier for an individual (especially unfunded) today to measure the thing than ever before (even if it IS most easy today - with the glory of modern technology)

Quote
They allow you to make predictions which can then be tested.

Also not a part of the scientific method. I know, I know - heresy!

There is no "make predictions" or "test predictions" step.  There is a test hypothesis by experiment step.  The rest is meta science at best, and pseudo science at worst.

Quote
You are going to need more than just your continually dismissal to convince any sane person.

My aim is most certainly not convincing, and how many (self diagnosed) sane people visit this website anyhow?  I engage in rational discourse for the, ideally, mutual pursuit of truth (and failing that, knowledge will suffice).

Quote
Then why did I just deny it, and also explain why it is wrong?

Well, one - because you CAN automatically gainsay anything and two, because an explanation allowed you to flap your gums and avoid recognizing the obvious, as I said.  There is no other method to determine the shape of physical objects than measurement, regardless of  specific type of measurement (which is mostly irrelevant, though direct measurement is always better than inferential)

Quote
You need more than just repeating the same assertion to justify your claim.

It isn't really a claim, it's almost a tautology/truism.  Unless I am misunderstanding you, it is very odd that you would feel so strongly that measurement isn't the only way to determine the shape of physical objects, and then NOT provide a single example of how that might work (because from where I'm sitting - it is, by definition, impossible and nonsensical).

Quote
No, those which are composites are typically clearly indicated as such. Meanwhile they are plenty of actual photos, such as those from GEOS and DSCOVR (as well as other agencies).

That's true, those are claimed to be photos - much like the apollo "photos" were.  They are laughable in terms of realism - but good enough for some to keep the torch lit and so the serial publications continue on to the next exciting episode.

Quote
Why should we leave out the only thing you are saying is good enough to determine the shape of Earth?

Again you misunderstand. I think we both agree that using satellites is the quickest way to get the data - and certainly that it is outside the realm of feasibility for the individual to do so.  But I in no way feel that it is the ONLY way, nor only way "good enough". 

Like I said, perhaps "holistically" it is not feasible to get the whole world "in frame" regardless of what shape it is, due to its size, and so smaller chunks should do.

Quote
The only way to do that is if you admit there are alternatives, and that we can indirectly determine the shape of Earth, such as by measuring the distance between locations on its surface, or by using the stars/sky.

There's almost never ONLY one way (to skin a cat, etc.).  In this case, the simplest place to begin measuring is flat, still, and ideally frozen, water.  It does not require unvalidated assumption, nor unsound inference.  The globe cannot be a part of empirical science until that curvature is measured in physical reality - which has never been done and doing so would violate existing natural law.

Quote
It sure seems to be. Because those existing measurements show beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.

Perhaps some of the satellite based data does.  In general the measurements that exist don't show and/or prove what people expect/learned they do.

Quote
You wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

There really is no evidence of gravitations manifest physical reality, nor was there in the past.  It is not even defined well enough to begin looking for it, that includes today.

Cavendish observations (not experiments) appear to show a minuscule attraction between certain types of matter (almost exclusively brass/lead).  What they measure is that minuscule attraction - gravitation, IF it exists, is wholly unknown, unmeasurable, and unmanipulable.  The chief reason for this is it is non-real.

I know it will take some rinse and repeats for any of this to start sinking in.  Education by rote is grueling, and so is repairing the damage caused by it.

Quote
The stupid and unscientific idea is that things just fall for no reason at all, or that everything has a natural place and will try to go back to its place.

I generally agree that both of those are stupid and unscientific ideas.  They are both your submissions...

Quote
The scientific and not-stupid idea is gravitation.

So we are taught in the classroom.  But is it true and how can we tell?  I have researched the questions thoroughly and found that newton was fully aware of both how unscientific and stupid gravitation was, and as a result explicitly asked that his name NOT be associated with it.  He personally chalked it all up to god, the big G in the sky.

Quote
No, you dodged it.

That was not my intention.  My purpose is to be understood and criticized, so I will always continue to attempt to do so.  Let's try again.

Quote
You claimed things fall because you give them energy when you lift them up.

Correct, that's where the energy for falling comes from - precisely.

Quote
If that was the case then things should fall to the left when you give them energy by pushing them to the right.

You keep saying that, but you aren't providing your reasoning / logic.  One of the things is observed consistently, and so is a natural law (gravity).  The other, your fledgling physics of "return to start"-ism is not.  What explanation is required for something that DOESN'T happen?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2021, 09:35:04 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2021, 09:27:43 AM »
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
So no, the energy used to lift things DOES NOT MAKE THEM FALL!

Yes, it does.  Each and every time. This does not vary with the shape of the world, nor conceptions thereof.  In truth, it doesn't even vary with the standard conceptualization(s) of gravitation.  It is 100% consistent across the board.  Good science stamp of approval.

Quote
And calling me indoctrinated because I don't accept your BS and can explain why it is wrong is just a pathetic insult

I don't mean it that way at all! I should be more careful, I certainly don't want to offend/insult anyone or otherwise make this discussion any more emotional than it ought to be.  I try, and admittedly fail a lot, to replace instances of "indoctrination"/"conditioning"/"miseducation" etc. directed at "you" to be directed, more accurately and properly, at us/we.  Not YOUR indoctrination, OUR indoctrination!!!

Quote
which doesn't help the discussion at all and indicates that you aren't really interested in a discussion and more just want to attack science and reality without any argument against either.

I could not agree more.  Ad-hominem has NO place in rational discourse, or effective communication of any kind.  It was not my intention at all to insult, though it could have potentially been rhetorical to incite/inspire/engage.  I mostly see it as "matter of fact", from my perspective fwiw.

Quote
No, it isn't. They are 2 fundamentally different things.

In the standard teaching, yes - I recognize that.

Quote
Again, ignoring this does not help your case. It just shows you have no interest in reality.

Quite the contrary!  I am really suggesting that the minor variances in weight measured at different locations on earth have an unknown or misunderstood cause.  Not ignoring, reinterpreting!

Quote
Quote
Things do not fall because they are "returning" where they originally were.
Again, they aren't.

Right, we are in agreement.  There is no reason to expect that something wants to go back where it came from, but things do resist change/motion.

Quote
Again, if that was the case, weight wouldn't vary.

You sound awfully convinced.  Why couldn't weight both be an intrinsic property and minorly variate with other factors (which we know it does)?

Quote
An object moves upwards upwards with a particular kinetic energy. It magically slows down with that kinetic energy being destroyed...Without gravitational potential energy, you have a violation of the conservation of energy

I see, I should have suspected as much.  The problem is one of conceptualization.  You put energy in to lift the object upwards, kinetic energy if you will.  Then you stop.  If there were a mountain ledge, or roof where you stopped - the object could just sit there happily at rest as it was initially.

Without the ledge, the coyote, ahem - object realizes that there is no ground beneath it.  It falls, with the energy used to lift it (and nothing else), as archimedes principle describes and for the experimentally validatable reasons described within it.

To me, it depends on what the claims are.
Quote
If they claims are wild and appear to be based upon wilful rejection of reality, especially when made without evidence, I will be more likely to just dismiss them and move on.

That sounds fair to me!

Quote
Good thing I didn't say I wouldn't accept justification and evidence and instead pointed out that the claims were made without that.

That is good! My reason for saying that was because MANY people engage in this subject who do not wish to learn.  There are perhaps even many more than that for which no amount of evidence or justification could ever change their minds.  I saw a recent post by one of the admins here that captured it perfectly ; "We already know that empirically the world is certainly flat, therefore any representation or argument otherwise is clearly fraudulent."  That is, sadly, the mandated default view for all "educated" - of course with one minor insignificant word changed.

Quote
Which is still a replacement, which you are still providing.

Sure, sure.  If you insist.  I just wanted to make clear that it isn't my idea, or something that I'm "providing" as much as discussing what is left over once you have removed, and what existed prior to, gravitation from equation.

Quote
Just like every other fundamental force.
Again, do you reject all of them?

The other ones are real, measurable, empirical forces. Actual forces.

They are not fictional "pseudoforces" without any demonstrable reality.

Quote
Yes, where you throw in a bunch of elaborate overcomplicated BS to try to keep what you think is true matching.
I will prefer to stick to the simpler options.

I am a scientific "traditionalist" in many ways.  One of the core posits of traditional science is that nature is simple. And I am often an advocate of occams razor.

However, what if it were really terribly complicated? We'd spend our time working on simple things we could understand and being constantly wrong!  We'd work to make equations more beautiful and reduced/succinct at the expense of true knowledge and science (and there are physicists out there that claim this is exactly what has been happening)

Quote
But i do notice that you don't give such an alternative.

Like I said, it's a demo job.  Construction doesn't arrive 'til we haul this old junk away.

I just want you to understand that it isn't a trick.  It isn't a game, or a debate.  It is an earnest discussion, and search for truth (ideally).

Quote
And gravitation/gravity meets that just fine.
It is measurable.

No, it doesn't.  Gravitation isn't even defined well enough to begin (if you wanted to measure it).

You think that the apparent attraction in cavendish is caused by gravitation, but you can't prove it.  In fact, you can't even properly define (let alone establish) what the gravitation is - no one can.

Quote
They are not as rigorously defined as you would like.

Most of the time that's true, which is why I savor the technical vernacular.

Quote
No, you continue to reject reality.

This has less to do with reality, and more to do with definition.

Quote
Gravity is gravitation.

Colloquially, and even originally (at inception), yes - that's true.  In modern scientific vernacular, there is a distinction.  One is a natural law, and the other is a theory.  However, because the mathematical description of the law contains non-real (purely mathematical) terms taken from the theory - the two have been conflated which helps to further obscure the distinction of law and theory in the minds of many.

Quote
There is the universal law of gravitation. This is a scientific law, backed up by mountains of evidence that you choose to reject without cause.

Not really, it is just presented that way.  The universal law of gravitation isn't valid because it invokes non-real, purely mathematical terms.  It also fails to predict much of the motions of the heavens, but that is another matter.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2021, 09:31:38 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2021, 09:32:11 AM »
@jackblack ( part 3 bonus )

Quote
You are the one making the distinction, not science. All so you can pretend one is real and the other is fake.

I am highlighting the distinction, not creating it.  I am "providing" clarification to that effect.

Natural law exists separate to the mathematical formulations thereof (though they ought be consistent/unified).  The theory (of gravitation) that is used in the description of the law is what is in contention, not the law.

I recognize that even the nomenclature itself has been conflated together i.e. law of universal gravitation.

Natural law and theory are different.  Perhaps an example might help :

It is a theory that the sky is blue because of diffraction, it is a law that it is blue.  We could come up with equations based on the theory and then call one of those the "law of the sky".  One day someone could come up and say that the blue color is actually because of the oxygen content in the upper air and oceans, turning the theory on its head.  The law perseveres through all of it - completely unphased, and not caring in the slightest how we choose to represent it mathematically.

Gravity the law is thousands of years old.  It is not going anywhere, though its mathematical description can and has changed radically (as the theory has changed).

We don't have to agree on the specific words used, we just have to be consistent so that we understand one another!  As I said to jja, it is less about the specific definitions and much more about the acute awareness of the difference between scientific law and theory.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2021, 03:39:17 PM »
Quote
Mapping is measuring and allows you to determine the gaussian curvature, which is a very big part of the shape.
Lol, fair enough.  I meant mapping in the non mathematical context, of making maps.  Cartography.
And so did I.
You can use the measurements from that cartography to determine the gaussian curvature.
The fact that the accurate maps of Earth require Earth to be a globe, or to have a scale (sometimes anisotropic) that changes based upon location based upon Earth being a sphere, shows that it has a nearly constant positive gaussian curvature.

This means that Earth must be roughly spherical.
It cannot be flat.
What it doesn't show is that we are living on the outside of the sphere. It allows the possibility of us living on the inside of the sphere.

If Earth was actually flat, we would have all maps being basically the same, where the only distinction is the location of the cuts to join Earth together (and even that would require Earth to exist in a strange space and otherwise just have the same edge for all maps), and each of these maps would have a constant scale throughout.

Quote
The likely (as I really would have to ask you for specific procedure detail before I commented) answer to your valid and justified question is that we may not know the bounds of the earth :(.
And that just changes it from being the distance to the sun must be many times the size of Earth to many times the size of the known regions of Earth.

Quote
we expect that it should work - and with the lights in the sky, it doesn't.  It gives wacky answers (like the 3000 mile figure for the sun)
You mean it shows Earth is round.
There is nothing wacky about that.
It is only when you try to force Earth to be flat that you have these "wacky" answers.

Quote
Likewise your fervency and certainty in its reality (due to having been taught that through conditioning by rote under the guise of education)
No, due to the evidence supporting it.

Quote
Quote
And it is still wrong.
I think you are just saying that to disagree.
No. I'm saying it because it is wrong.
Yes, it is still hard, but it is vastly easier now than it was in the ancient world.
You can obtain much more accurate equipment, and travel around the world much more easily.

Quote
Quote
They allow you to make predictions which can then be tested.
Also not a part of the scientific method. I know, I know - heresy!
No, a very important part.
You make a prediction based upon the hypothesis and then test if that prediction is correct. If it is not, it indicates the hypothesis is wrong.
How else do you plan on testing the hyothesis?

Quote
I engage in rational discourse for the, ideally, mutual pursuit of truth (and failing that, knowledge will suffice).
Rational discource is not just repeated dismissal of reality.

Quote
Quote
Then why did I just deny it, and also explain why it is wrong?
Well, one - because you CAN automatically gainsay anything and two, because an explanation allowed you to flap your gums and avoid recognizing the obvious, as I said.
You are the one refusing to recognise the obvious.
There are many ways to determine the shape of an object. Direct measurements of the object are not the only way.

If you are happy with indirect measurements being included then that includes measuring the angle between Earth and a star (or other celestial object).
These indirect measurements allow you to make a model which produce these measurements.

By "measurement of an object" I take it to mean directly measuring the physical object. Not an indirect measurement.

Quote
It isn't really a claim
It is most certainly a claim, at least as you presented it.
You claim a model has no place in science, and constructing models and comparing them with reality cannot allow to determine the shape of an object.

A simple counter example is by looking at/measuring the shadow cast by the object, or measuring the the angle between the surface and some reference point.

Quote
They are laughable in terms of realism
Why? Because they show Earth is roughly spherical and you don't like that?

Again, you just dismiss the evidence with no justification.

Quote
I think we both agree that using satellites is the quickest way to get the data - and certainly that it is outside the realm of feasibility for the individual to do so.
That depends on the individual. You can have a small satellite hitch a ride on a launch of a bigger satellite for a relative small price, but still quite expensive for the individual.
Or you can just get the data from the satellites already up there.

But why must everything be done at the level of the indivudal?
Our knowledge is built by cooperation, not by claiming that everyone is lying and trying to hide the truth.

Quote
There's almost never ONLY one way (to skin a cat, etc.).  In this case, the simplest place to begin measuring is flat, still, and ideally frozen, water.
You mean level.
I disagree with the frozen part though.
Once it is frozen it is no longer certain to be level. The frozen surface can be distorted, and the surface can be eorded.
So the better option would be calm water.

But any measurement such as this will have a degree of uncertainty.
And that means you can't just measure a small bit of water in a sink. Instead you need to measure a very significant body of water where that curvature will be significant.
Over 5 km, the dip from one side to the other is roughly 2 m. The bulge at the centre would be roughly 0.5 m.
That means you need to be able to accurately measure a distance on the order of m or less, over a distance of 5 km.

And you cannot assume the water will be flat to use that as a reference.
You also can't use something like a piece of string for your level because it bows, and typically the string will bow more than Earth curves.

This means you would need something else, such as measuring the angle of dip or distance to the horizon from a known height, as done by Al Biruni, or by measuring how much of an object is obscured based upon distance.
But both of those need to account for refraction.

But another method, far less direct, is to measure the angle to a celestial object. Do this for multiple locations and use that to determine the shape of Earth.

Quote
The globe cannot be a part of empirical science until that curvature is measured in physical reality
And it has been. Maybe not in the way you want it to be, but it has been measured.

Quote
doing so would violate existing natural law.
What natural law?
Do you mean the blatantly false law commonly promoted by FEers that water will magically be flat?
Because that isn't a natural law.
That is the false claim of the FEers, and goes directly aginst plenty of observations of water.

Quote
In general the measurements that exist don't show and/or prove what people expect/learned they do.
They sure seem to. And it is only be having nature itself conspire to make Earth appear to be round that they don't.

Quote
There really is no evidence of gravitations manifest physical reality
Again, you not wanting it to exist doesn't mean it wont exist.
There is plenty of evidence for it.

Quote
Cavendish observations (not experiments)
I notice you never responed to the fact that even he called it an experiment.

Quote
What they measure ... IF it exists, is ... unmeasurable
So you are saying that they measured something that is unmeasurable.
Do you not notice the massive contradiction in that?
They measured something that is very real and measurable.

Again, you wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

Quote
I know it will take some rinse and repeats for any of this to start sinking in.
No, it will take you justifying your claims.
You repeating the same lie wont make me accept it.
You would need to explain away all the evidence for gravity/gravitation for me to accept it isn't real, or point out an actual logical problem with it.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2021, 03:40:10 PM »
Quote
I generally agree that both of those are stupid and unscientific ideas.  They are both your submissions...
No, they aren't.
They are what you are promoting.

Quote
So we are taught in the classroom.  But is it true and how can we tell?
You can tell by carrying out some of the experiments yourself.

Quote
I have researched the questions thoroughly and found that newton was fully aware of both how unscientific and stupid gravitation was
So you claim, but I find no evidence of that.
His Principia Mathematica sure seems to indicate the opposite.

Quote
You keep saying that, but you aren't providing your reasoning / logic.
You are claiming that by providing energy when moving an object you cause it to then use that energy to move in the opposite direction.
That means that if you move it to the right, providing energy to do so, it should then move back to the left.

Quote
One of the things is observed consistently
Yes, gravitation.
What isn't is the idea that things just magically fall, as that is not consistent as the rate which it falls varies.
And not everything falls. Instead some things rise.

Quote
it doesn't even vary with the standard conceptualization(s) of gravitation.
Yes it does.
The simplest way to see this is an object in space, never on Earth, falling to Earth.
Things didn't start on Earth and get lifted up. So if it was just the energy provided to them to lift them which makes them fall, then they would never fall, and Earth would never have formed.

With the standard conceptualisations, things lose energy gravitaional potential energy when they fall, so they have negative gravtational potential energy, and thus they need to be provided with energy to lift.
i.e. it is the exact opposite to what you claim.
It takes energy to lift things, because they lost that energy when they fell.

Quote
Not YOUR indoctrination, OUR indoctrination!!!
No, not my indoctrination.
Even if you want to think you were indoctrinated, that doesn't mean we are.
Again, it is just an excuse to dismiss reality and insult and belittle the position of those defending reality by pretending the only reason they are doing so is because they are indoctrinated.

So the better approach would be to completely avoid saying indoctrination at all.

Quote
In the standard teaching
And in reality, as repeatedly explained, which you keep on ignoring.
Weight and mass are fundamentally different.

Quote
I am really suggesting that the minor variances in weight measured at different locations on earth have an unknown or misunderstood cause.
It doesn't matter, it still means that weight varies. It is not an instrinsic property of the substance.
Mass doesn't vary like that and thus is the instric property.

Quote
There is no reason to expect that something wants to go back where it came from
And thus there is no reason (without something like gravity/gravitation) to think that lifting something should make it fall.

Quote
Why couldn't weight both be an intrinsic property and minorly variate with other factors (which we know it does)?
Because that directly contradicts what an intrinsic property is.
An intrinsic property is a property of the thing which does not depend on external factors.
If it is based upon things external to it then it is an extrinsic property.
So if weight varies with factors external to the object, such as the object's location, it is an extrinsic property, not an intrinsic one.

Unless weight, the rest mass of an object is an intrinsic property. It doesn't matter what you do to the object, where you take it and so on, as long as you do not take or give it anything, it's mass remains constant.

Quote
You put energy in to lift the object upwards, kinetic energy if you will.
And unless you have something like gravitational potential energy, the object will continue moving upwards with the same kinetic energy as otherwise it would vioalte the conservation of energy.

Quote
as archimedes principle describes
Again, that is nothing like archimedes principle.


Quote
There are perhaps even many more than that for which no amount of evidence or justification could ever change their minds.
I find that is far more common in the FE camp.

Quote
The other ones are real, measurable, empirical forces. Actual forces.
And other than the debate on in gravity is a real force or a pseudo/inertial force, that matches gravity.
Gravity is real, measurable and empirical, with demonstrable reality.

So why reject gravity?
It seems to be just you not liking it (perhaps because the logical consequence of it (along with other things) is that Earth is round), and thus rejecting all the evidence for it to pretend it is fiction.
You could do the same with every other force, with all the evidence just being "misinterpretation".

Quote
However, what if it were really terribly complicated?
Then there would be evidence of that complication.
For an example with gravity, we have the orbit of Mercury, showing that it wasn't as simple as Newton proposed.
There is also the issue of galactic rotation curves which could indicate that at the very long range gravity doesn't follow the inverse square law, or that we just aren't accounting for all the matter.

The point is, there is no reason to overcomplicate all the evidence for gravitation to pretend it is fiction and something else is causing all that. Especially when you just leave it as an unknown.
This simple gravitation allows us to explain so much.

Even having F=GMm/r^2 is more complex than a much simpler idea of F= m * 9.8 m/s^2.
And the F=GMm/r^2 is actually meant to include a unit vector pointing to the center of M or m with F being a vector as well.

But there is no reason to add complications when there is a much simpler option.
And that applies to FE vs RE as well.
There is no need to add the massive complication of a massive global conspiracy and nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round, rather than the much simpler option of Earth being round.

Quote
Like I said, it's a demo job.  Construction doesn't arrive 'til we haul this old junk away.
And that simply isn't how science works.
When you discover that a model/theory is limited, you don't simply discard it. You improve it, with the simpler model being an approximation.

Quote
Quote
And gravitation/gravity meets that just fine.
It is measurable.
No, it doesn't.  Gravitation isn't even defined well enough to begin (if you wanted to measure it).
Again, how isn't it?
People have measured it. It is defined just as well as any other fundamental force.

Quote
You think that the apparent attraction in cavendish is caused by gravitation, but you can't prove it.
And the same would apply to everything.
Science does not deal with proof. The closest it comes to that is disproof.
You can dismiss all of the science for the working of a computer and just it is coincidence that they work, but all the science it is based upon is fiction which cannot be proven or measured, or even defined well enough.

Quote
Colloquially, and even originally (at inception), yes - that's true.  In modern scientific vernacular, there is a distinction.  One is a natural law, and the other is a theory.
No, that is not the distinction.
The only time an actual distinction appears is when people use gravity as the acceleration towards a single object, whereas gravitation is the mutual attraction between 2 objects.
In that sense they are both part of the same theory, and both have simple laws.

The distinction would be F=GMm/r^2 vs a=GM/r^2, which will sometimes simpligy to a=g.
These are both laws.

Quote
Not really, it is just presented that way.
Yes really.
Again, you not liking it wont change that fact.
It is a simple law, which is backed up by plenty of evidence.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2021, 03:59:49 PM »
Quote
The universal law of gravitation isn't valid because it invokes non-real, purely mathematical terms.
You wanting to dismiss the terms as fictional does not make it so.
The only thing even remotely resembling a non-real term is the constant of proportionality.
The distance invovled is a very real term. The masses involved are very real terms.

Quote
It also fails to predict much of the motions of the heavens, but that is another matter.
Yes, it is a different matter because we don't know the masses invovled.
That would be like saying gravity fails to predict the motion of plenty of things, because you can't tell me how long it would take for an object I release to hit the ground (because I don't tell you how far it has to fall).
An inability to predict something based upon incomplete information is not a problem for the scientific law.

I am highlighting the distinction
No, you are providing a distinction that does not exist in science.
You are making it up.

Quote
is in contention, not the law.
No, the law itself is as well.
The law of gravitaiton is a scientific law, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't.

Quote
It is a theory that the sky is blue because of diffraction, it is a law that it is blue.
No it isn't.
That could not be further from the truth.

It can't possibly be a law that it is blue, because plenty of time, it is effectively colourless, and some times it is red instead.
And it isn't due to diffraction.

The law is that the atmosphere scatters light, scattering lower wavelength light a greater amount.
The theory is the derivation of that law from electromagnetism applies to individual molecules.

Quote
The law perseveres through all of it
Or it could be completley destroyed, such as by observing the sky being red at sunset, or an object rising instead of falling.

The scientific facts we are evaluating are very narrow, and the "interconnected"-ness you speak of is a foundational part of a narrative mythological fiction
No, it is a key foundation of science, which is why instead of having a bunch of different, completely disconnected ideas, we try to tie them all to simple fundamental laws of nature. As this makes the overal system simpler, even when these laws manifest in a complex manner due to the interconnected nature of reality.

And that applies throughout science.
When something new is discovered, it is a new fundamental law of nature, or is it just a manifestation of one of the existing laws?
And likewise, are what we think of as the fundamental laws actually the fundamental laws, or are they simply manifestations of a more fundamental law.

Quote
IF the world is flat, then everything we know and experience occurs on a flat earth.
Which in no way helps support the idea that Earth is flat.
Because if Earth isn't flat (which it isn't), then everything we know and experience does NOT occur on a flat Earth, nor would it necessarily be possible for it to occur on a flat Earth.

The majority of the things he listed are fundamentally tied to the shape of Earth.
The formation of Earth causes it to be a roughly spherical shape, with this also resulting in a molten core giving rise to a magnetic field, which is dynamic.

Conversely how would a FE form?
Your idea of gravity needs it to exist, already formed, so thigns can then be provided energy so they fall.
Otherwise, they have been given no energy and thus shouldn't fall.
And even if you do make them start falling, without something for them to land on, there is no reason for it to collect and form Earth.

Quote
The solar system and universe are supposed/observed to be anti-isotropically (against prediction and expectation) flat.
How is it against prediction and expectation?

For the universe, that "flat" refers to space being roughly Euclidean. Not it actually forming a flat object.
For the solar system, it again isn't a massive flat object but instead is a system of spherical objects orbitting in roughly the same plane.

Quote
But in any case, looking up to determine what is the opposite direction is unscientific and stupid.
So you claim, with no justifiaction at all.

Quote
The objects we observe (lights in the sky) are presumed far too distant to make any certain determinations as to size/shape/composition.
He specifically referred to the planets, which we can resolve, even sometimes with Earth based telescopes, and watch them rotate to clealry observe their roughly spherical shape.

But now reading more, it seems you are even including them, so it is just more wilful rejection of reality.

Quote
Again, you are simply failing to rationalize your mythology.  The laws of physics do not explain planetary formation
No, you are failing to understand science.
The laws of physics do explain planetary formation.
The key one is the law you hate so much you pretend it isn't a law and instead pretend it is fictional nonsnese with no basis in reality.
But your wilful rejection of reality will not change it.

You can choose to be wilfully ignorant if you want to be, but that doesn't mean we all must be, and that doesn't mean your position is credible when it is based upon that wilful ignorance.

Quote
What we know about magnetic field generation is a MAJOR problem for the presumptive mythology/model.
Why?
We know that a spinning ball of molten metal will produce a magnetic field.
We know that this is not stable and will drift and flip, and our magnetic field has been observed to drift, and there is evidence that it has flipped.

Quote
The "space born doom" thing is little more than fear porn for manipulation purposes.
No, it is science, based upon empirical observations.

Quote
No more pacifier, instead - get more comfortable with honesty.
Follow your own advice. Stop rejecting reality. Accept that there is plentiful evidence for gravitation, including the law of gravitation.


Quote
Everything works the same way if the world is flat.  This is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.
No, so many things would need to be fundametnally different.

Again, like I said before, this is a pathetic excuse to dismiss everything which shows that Earth is round.

The simple reality is that Earth is not flat. And if Earth was flat things would be very different.

For one simple one, if Earth was flat we wouldn't have so many different map projections where the scale varies accross the map.
Instead, the scale of every map would be constant for the entire map, and while you may have maps showing a different portion of the world, overall the maps would be the same other than which portion they choose to show.

The sole reason for all these different map projections is that Earth isn't flat, instead Earth is roughly spherical. That means you cannot perfectly map it to a flat surface without distortion. The different map projections introduce different distortions.
For example, the Mercarter projection, which you only ever have a portion of as the full projection would take infinite room, preserves direction. This causes the scale to increase as you get closer to the poles, due to the curvature of Earth.
This choice of projection, preserving direction, means that you can draw a straight line on the map, with a constant bearing, and then follow that bearing to reach your destination. It will not be the shortest path, but it is the simplest to navigate with.
The other advantage of this, is that the scale is isotropic, so any sufficiently small location on the map is merely a scaled version of reality. But at the large scale there is significant distortion and it is not easy to compare areas on the map at different latitudes.

None of that would be needed if Earth WAS flat.
The fact that it is needed shows Earth IS NOT flat.

And that seems to be something FEers struggle with (at least some).
You cannot simply assume that Earth is flat to pretend everything would work on a FE to pretend that an argument against FE is invalid.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2021, 09:18:38 PM »
@stash

Quote
I'm not sure I follow this bit. If things simply fall because of the input energy used to lift them, why do two differently weighted objects fall at the same rate?

Well, the short answer is - they don't.  In a vacuum they fall close to the same rate, but there is no such thing as vacuum - so they still fall with varying amounts of interaction with the media (density mostly, but terminal velocity and acceleration profile are heavily dependent on shape / drag as well).  Things fall, rise, or neither as described by archimedes' principle.

Quote
Each would have a different input energy used to lift them, I'm assuming meaning they would have a different falling "energy" rate.

This is a major problem for the presumptive model as well.  Inertia of separate objects of varying amounts of matter varies, and yet - magically - gravity always pulls the exact right amount (negotiates varying inertias instantaneously from any distance) - even from a theoretically infinite distance away.

However, yes - things that weigh more take more energy to move/lift and use that same larger energy when falling.  The force they impart when impacting (assuming a theoretical perfect transfer of force with no loss) MUST be exactly equal (of course, lesser in reality due to losses) to the energy used to lift the object.

Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?

There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2021, 09:21:43 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #76 on: January 23, 2021, 10:43:19 PM »
Things fall, rise, or neither as described by archimedes' principle.
Archimedes' principle doesn't describe things falling, merely displacing. There is no requirement for it to go down.

This is a major problem for the presumptive model as well.
Which Einstein solved with GR.

magically - gravity always pulls the exact right amount (negotiates varying inertias instantaneously from any distance) - even from a theoretically infinite distance away.
There is no more negotiation involved than with any other force.
The main distinction with this regard is that gravity uses mass rather than charge or the like.

If you take 2 objects with the same mass to charge ratio, the electrostatic force accelerates them the same.
Is that magic as well? Or is it just gravity that is magic?

The force they impart when impacting (assuming a theoretical perfect transfer of force with no loss) MUST be exactly equal (of course, lesser in reality due to losses) to the energy used to lift the object.
You are aware force and energy are 2 different things right?

But if this is true, and you lose energy when lifting and dropping things and the only reason it falls in the first place is that you provided energy to lift it, then by lifting it and dropping it enough you should lose all that energy.

Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?
There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.
How about meteors and other objects from space?
They were never lifted onto Earth.

And with your model, you should be able to dig a deep hole and throw a rock down and have it magically stop part way down, when it reaches the height it was originally at.
Likewise, we shouldn't need to bother about water flooding mines, because that is below where water was originally so it shouldn't fall down there.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #77 on: January 24, 2021, 01:54:15 PM »
@stash

Quote
I'm not sure I follow this bit. If things simply fall because of the input energy used to lift them, why do two differently weighted objects fall at the same rate?

Well, the short answer is - they don't.  In a vacuum they fall close to the same rate, but there is no such thing as vacuum - so they still fall with varying amounts of interaction with the media (density mostly, but terminal velocity and acceleration profile are heavily dependent on shape / drag as well).  Things fall, rise, or neither as described by archimedes' principle.

Quote
Each would have a different input energy used to lift them, I'm assuming meaning they would have a different falling "energy" rate.

This is a major problem for the presumptive model as well.  Inertia of separate objects of varying amounts of matter varies, and yet - magically - gravity always pulls the exact right amount (negotiates varying inertias instantaneously from any distance) - even from a theoretically infinite distance away.

However, yes - things that weigh more take more energy to move/lift and use that same larger energy when falling.  The force they impart when impacting (assuming a theoretical perfect transfer of force with no loss) MUST be exactly equal (of course, lesser in reality due to losses) to the energy used to lift the object.

Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?

There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.

How have you determined, there is a no such thing as a vacuum.
How have you determined objects do not fall at the same rate?
Do you have experimental data to back up your claims?

Itís odd that science would disagree with you on both counts.

How have you been able to verify the conversation of energy?

Some people might think you pick snd choose which of the laws of science to follow based on how they fit with your flat earth belief.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #78 on: January 25, 2021, 07:33:51 AM »
Quote
And what about something that falls that never had input energy used to lift it to begin with?

There are no such things (feel free to name one!).  Even if the energy used to lift was input aeons ago - it must have been input in order to be spent.  Such is one of the many results of the law of conservation.

Here's an experiment even you can do.  Find a rock sitting on the ground. Dig a hole next to it, and then push the rock over the edge of the hole. Watch gravity attract it to the bottom of the hole.

Now if you think that was a fluke, find another rock and do it again. You will get the same result anywhere on the planet. By your reasoning every rock on the planet was somehow lifted into position??

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2021, 12:53:28 PM »
Now if you think that was a fluke, find another rock and do it again. You will get the same result anywhere on the planet. By your reasoning every rock on the planet was somehow lifted into position??
I would suggest a slight variation.
If it falls, don't find another rock, dig a deeper hole next to it, and push it into that, and keep going.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2021, 06:54:12 PM »
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Quote
The fact that the accurate maps of Earth require Earth to be a globe, or to have a scale (sometimes anisotropic) that changes based upon location based upon Earth being a sphere, shows that it has a nearly constant positive gaussian curvature.

Still assuming the measurements are there because they "simply must be" eh?

Quote
It allows the possibility of us living on the inside of the sphere.

There are some that argue, and sometimes even measure this.

Quote
If Earth was actually flat, we would have all maps being basically the same, where the only distinction is the location of the cuts to join Earth together (and even that would require Earth to exist in a strange space and otherwise just have the same edge for all maps), and each of these maps would have a constant scale throughout.

There are many unvalidated assumptions baked in to the reasoning above, not the least of which are the accuracy (and existence) of the measurements you need.  Maps are about/for duration and location.  As long as those work for whatever specific use cases we use them for, the rest can be (and always was, historically) wrong.

Quote
And that just changes it from being the distance to the sun must be many times the size of Earth to many times the size of the known regions of Earth.

Possibly, the fact is that we don't know.  The sun can be close too (by "astronomical" standards).

Quote
You mean it shows Earth is round.

Not unless you already believe that in your heart.

Quote
It is only when you try to force Earth to be flat that you have these "wacky" answers.

This is wrong.  Parallax doesn't care much about the discrepancy due to a "bulge" of the earth being there or not (a curved side to the triangle).  When you have the one observer under the sun on the equinox (or where/when we believe that occurs) and another most anywhere else that can see the sun you come up with the 3000 figure.  Parallax does not work for stellar lights.

Quote
No, due to the evidence supporting it.

Then perhaps we should discuss this supposed evidence.

Quote
You make a prediction based upon the hypothesis and then test if that prediction is correct. If it is not, it indicates the hypothesis is wrong.
How else do you plan on testing the hyothesis?

Good question!

A hypothesis only has one purpose, validation (and invalidation, or neither) by experiment.  You do not use a hypothesis to generate a prediction.  The hypothesis IS the prediction you experimentally verify.  It is truly sad how scientifically illiterate we are - even the fundamental definitions known by the vast majority are plainly incorrect.

Quote
Rational discource is not just repeated dismissal of reality.

That's true, but when the topic of discussion IS (or at least heavily involves) the dismissal of reality by your fellow participants - one hardly has much choice now do they?!

Quote
You are the one refusing to recognise the obvious.

I assure you, it merely seems that way.  The reality is the reverse, but it will take time to understand what I'm really saying and for what reason (and to verify earnesty/intent)

Quote
There are many ways to determine the shape of an object. Direct measurements of the object are not the only way.

Stop adding "direct" so you have a nonsense "out".  I didn't add "direct", why did you?  Measurement is the only way to determine the shape of an object in physical reality (empirical science).  Direct measurement of the object is always preferred to inferential means, though there is no reason to get bogged down in irrelevant pedantry/semantics over that fact (through creative/biased interpretation of "direct" and "inferential")

Quote
If you are happy with indirect measurements being included then that includes measuring the angle between Earth and a star (or other celestial object).

The measures of the angles are real, yes.  Their interpretation is the trouble.  These are no substitute for actual measurements of distance and shape, and it is insane to think they are.
 
Quote
These indirect measurements allow you to make a model which produce these measurements.

Only with blind faith.  Without it, the unvalidated assumptions required for the interpretation do not bare critical scrutiny.

Quote
By "measurement of an object" I take it to mean directly measuring the physical object. Not an indirect measurement.

I did not specify intentionally.  To determine the shape of an object in reality, you have to measure it.  If you want good accuracy and reliability, you need to do so rigorously and repeatedly.  The most accurate and reliable measurements are almost always direct.


Quote
You claim a model has no place in science, and constructing models and comparing them with reality cannot allow to determine the shape of an object.

True.  Only measurement determines the shape of the object.  Playing with models is not involved, or helpful.

Quote
Why? Because they show Earth is roughly spherical and you don't like that?

No - because they're so poorly produced!  Even worse than usual!

Quote
Again, you just dismiss the evidence with no justification.

You dismiss the justifications :(. But we will keep trying, as long as you wish it.

Quote
But why must everything be done at the level of the indivudal?

It doesn't, but the verification of facts before accepting them as true falls on the individual alone.  It is a shamefully neglected duty, and explains much of the troubles we see in the world.

Quote
Our knowledge is built by cooperation, not by claiming that everyone is lying and trying to hide the truth.

That is in NO WAY my claim (the latter).  The former very much is!  I am glad to see it is yours as well.

Quote
You mean level.

Yes! That too, thanks for reminding me!

Quote
So the better option would be calm water.

It introduces way too many problems that the frozen solves/avoid.  Even if you have to go further in distance to get a measurement, EVERYTHING is harder over water and this is doubly true when it is wet.

Quote
But any measurement such as this will have a degree of uncertainty.

All measurements do, which is why it is best to use directly verified ones whenever possible.

Quote
And that means you can't just measure a small bit of water in a sink.

You can start there though! And this is how the laws of hydrostatics were established originally.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2021, 06:54:45 PM »
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

Quote
And you cannot assume the water will be flat to use that as a reference.

Of course you can, but you wouldn't - due to indoctrination/belief.

Quote
You also can't use something like a piece of string for your level because it bows, and typically the string will bow more than Earth curves.

There are ways to address that, but frozen is better - trust me.

Quote
But another method, far less direct, is to measure the angle to a celestial object. Do this for multiple locations and use that to determine the shape of Earth.

Only with many unvalidated assumptions.  Looking up to determine what is down beneath you is both unscientific and stupid no matter how many times you repeat it is reasonable.

Quote
And it has been. Maybe not in the way you want it to be, but it has been measured.

No, it hasn't been and measuring it would violate established hydrostatic laws.  One of the reasons we know it hasn't been measured is that no one knows who measured it, how, or when.  It has been perpetually calculated and inferred from faulty assumption.  Never once measured.  Things MUST be measured in order to BECOME a part of empericism.

Quote
What natural law?

There are a few, but the one most central to our discussion is that water's surface (of non-miniscule surface area / volume, and under natural conditions) at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal.  This is a trivially demonstrated natural law that has stood unchallenged for centuries in hydrostatics.  The ONLY way to refute natural law is through repeated measurement to the contrary.  BECAUSE there exists no measurement to the contrary, this law of hydrostatics stands today as it did centuries ago and for the exact same reasons.

Quote
They sure seem to. And it is only be having nature itself conspire to make Earth appear to be round that they don't.

Humans always feel that way (throughout history).  Nature didn't conspire to make you stupid and wrong, you just are frequently - like all that came before you, scientist or not.

Many times in human history, the scientific (and otherwise) "truths held self evident" are discarded / reversed / overturned and many of those people undoubtedly felt the exact same way.  Why did nature conspire to confuse us so?  Why does nature guard her secrets so jealously?  We may never know.

Quote
Again, you not wanting it to exist doesn't mean it wont exist.
There is plenty of evidence for it.

You're still confused about the terminology.  Let's try again.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces, with one caveat.

The caveat is called natural law.  Natural law, as I've said before, is much like scientific "bedrock".  It is established only through observation.  It is, "what is" in science in terms of the phenomena that we observe and experience consistently.

The natural law of gravity is very old.  Thousands of years.  Newton was not involved.

The natural law of gravity; the repeated and consistent observation that material objects, when lifted, tend to fall once allowed to do so.

THAT is the law.  Much like the sky being blue, it is consistently observed and measurable/measured.  No matter how that law is represented mathematically - often including/involving the contemporary scientific theory - the underlying natural/scientific law remains unchanged.  Are you following?

Quote
I notice you never responed to the fact that even he called it an experiment.

That's because neither he nor the reverend ever did, but why bother to chime in just to contradict you?

Quote
So you are saying that they measured something that is unmeasurable.

Lol, "that's the ticket"!  They measured something.  That something is real.  It is a real attraction between two brass/lead weights.  It is an interesting observation, and well worth further study!

Quote
They measured something that is very real and measurable.

Yes, and it was their religious faith that told them WHAT it was they were measuring.  They didn't let science or the scientific method get in their way! Of course, this is a reverend we are talking about.

Quote
Again, you wanting it to not exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

It really and truly doesn't exist.  Every physicist for the past several hundred years has been well aware of this.

Quote
No, it will take you justifying your claims.

I must leave that evaluation to you.  All I can do is discuss my findings and share my evidence/reasonings. 

Quote
or point out an actual logical problem with it.

I've already done that repeatedly, and again - any physics knowledgable person you ask will have plenty of problems with gravitation to discuss.  Take your pick!  One I mentioned was the necessity for faster than light information transfer in order to negotiate accelerating (potentially) infinitely distant objects with varying inertias.  Another was its intractability.  The best is the utter lack of any empirical/scientific/experimental support for the actual existence of gravitation in any way (including definition, in case someone did ever want to bother looking for the cause of gravity)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 07:10:18 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2021, 12:02:33 AM »
Still assuming the measurements are there because they "simply must be" eh?
No, just not delusionally claiming they can't possibly be there.
You are free to go take a map and show it is wrong, making sure you note the distortion involved in the projection.

Otherwise maps of Earth quite conclusively show it is a sphere.

Quote
Quote
If Earth was actually flat, we would have all maps being basically the same, where the only distinction is the location of the cuts to join Earth together (and even that would require Earth to exist in a strange space and otherwise just have the same edge for all maps), and each of these maps would have a constant scale throughout.
There are many unvalidated assumptions baked in to the reasoning above
And of course, you can't provide any of them and instead just pretend the measurements are fake.
In that case you go measure it yourself. Come back when you can produce a flat map of Earth with a constant scale.

Quote
the rest can be (and always was, historically) wrong.
You not understanding the distortion inherent in the projection does not make them wrong.

Quote
Possibly, the fact is that we don't know.  The sun can be close too (by "astronomical" standards).
Close by astronomical standards, not by the size of the known region of Earth.
150 million km is "close" by astronomical standards where the next nereast star is over 4 light years away, the galaxy is over 100 thousand light years across, and the nearest galaxy is over a million light years away.

But none of that changes the fact that the sun is far away compared to the size of the known region of Earth.
None of it changes the argument.

Quote
Quote
You mean it shows Earth is round.
Not unless you already believe that in your heart.
No, only if you don't hate the idea of a round Earth that causes you to reject everything that shows it is.
It requires no assumptions about the shape of Earth.
With only 2 measurements the problem is unconstrained, but with plenty more, the problem is constrained and shows that these lights in the sky are very far away and Earth is round.

But instead of accept that, you just dismiss it all and pretend it can't work because it shows Earth is round.

Quote
Quote
It is only when you try to force Earth to be flat that you have these "wacky" answers.
This is wrong.
No, it is entirely correct.
You get massive discrepancies when you pretend Earth is flat, due to the simple fact that Earth isn't flat.

Quote
you come up with the 3000 figure.  Parallax does not work for stellar lights.
Again, only when you falsely assume Earth is flat.
It works just fine when you don't make that assumption.
But calculating the distance to a known object that far away requires very precise measurements.

Quote
Then perhaps we should discuss this supposed evidence.
I already have, and you continually dismiss it as fake.

Quote
Quote
You make a prediction based upon the hypothesis and then test if that prediction is correct. If it is not, it indicates the hypothesis is wrong.
How else do you plan on testing the hyothesis?
Good question!

A hypothesis only has one purpose, validation (and invalidation, or neither) by experiment.  You do not use a hypothesis to generate a prediction.  The hypothesis IS the prediction you experimentally verify.  It is truly sad how scientifically illiterate we are - even the fundamental definitions known by the vast majority are plainly incorrect.
Have you ever stopped to consider if you are the scientifically illiterate one? Especially when you are basically everyone other than you is wrong?
That typically indicates that you are the one who is wrong.

Quote
That's true, but when the topic of discussion IS (or at least heavily involves) the dismissal of reality by your fellow participants - one hardly has much choice now do they?!
Sure they do. I choose not to reject reality. Why do you choose to reject it?

Quote
Stop adding "direct" so you have a nonsense "out".  I didn't add "direct", why did you?
Because that is the only logical interpretation of your initial claim.

Especially when you claim that looking elsewhere is stupid (for an indirect measurement) is stupid.

Quote
These are no substitute for actual measurements of distance and shape
And why don't you replace "actual" with what you really mean "DIRECT"

Quote
The most accurate and reliable measurements are almost always direct.
I have already explained how that is false. Why do you just repeat the same false statement?

Quote
Quote
You claim a model has no place in science, and constructing models and comparing them with reality cannot allow to determine the shape of an object.
True.
No, blatantly false. As already explained repeatedly.

Quote
No - because they're so poorly produced!  Even worse than usual!
How so?
It seems you are just looking for any excuse you can use to dismiss them without directly saying what the real reason is, because they show you are wrong.

Quote
You dismiss the justifications
No I don't.

Quote
Quote
But why must everything be done at the level of the indivudal?
It doesn't
Then why pretend by dismissing all the evidence that shows you are wrong?
That sure seems to be acting like it must be.
And no, your semantic BS or pretending it is just "verification" that needs to be done doesn't save you. That is still saying it must all be done by the individual.

Quote
Quote
Our knowledge is built by cooperation, not by claiming that everyone is lying and trying to hide the truth.
That is in NO WAY my claim
It sure seems to be.
You dismiss all the evidence that has been gathered by so many people and instead just claim it is all fake.

Quote
Yes! That too, thanks for reminding me!
No, not "that too" It is level, not FLAT!
And if you did really mean it that way, that would be entirely circular reasoning as you are saying only the measurement of a flat object would be valid to show Earth is flat, but that only makes sense with the false assumption that Earth is flat.

Quote
It introduces way too many problems that the frozen solves/avoid.
And the frozen version introduces way too many problems that the liquid avoids.

Quote
All measurements do, which is why it is best to use directly verified ones whenever possible.
No, it isn't. Direct ones can have even greater levels of uncertainty.

Quote
Quote
And that means you can't just measure a small bit of water in a sink.
You can start there though!
Not if your goal is trying to see if Earth is flat or round, not unless you have an amazingly accurate instrument that can measure to roughly the size of the atom over that short distance.

That is just the kind of nonsense FEers use to pretend there is no curve.
They can't detect the curve over such a short distance due to the relatively massive uncertainty in the experiment, so they falsely conclude their must be no curve.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #83 on: January 26, 2021, 12:04:16 AM »
Quote
And you cannot assume the water will be flat to use that as a reference.
Of course you can
No, you can't.
Do you notice what you are doing now?
You are assuming Earth is flat, to make a measurement which is based upon this assumption, where you are assuming the surface of the water is flat, to then falsely conclude that Earth is flat.

So no, my alleged "indoctrination" (and there you go with more pathetic insults) has nothing to do with it.
Instead it is entirely to do with me trying my best to be an honest, logical individual.

Notice the significant contrast where you seem to just be trying to do whatever you can to pretend Earth is flat, including suggesting an experimental method that usees the assumption that Earth is flat to pretend Earth is flat. And likewise, with your prior use of falsely assuming Earth is flat to pretend that stars in the light magically make no sense, and falsely assuming Earth is flat to pretend that everything observed in reality is consistent with a flat Earth.

Quote
Only with many unvalidated assumptions.
Stop just repeating the same lie.

The only "assumption" is that light doesn't magically bend to pretend Earth is round.

Quote
Looking up to determine what is down beneath you is both unscientific and stupid no matter how many times you repeat it is reasonable.
Again, the truth could not be further from that garabge.
No matter how many times you repeat the same lie, it will not make it stupid or unscientific.
And again, that is saying indirect measurement is stupid and unscientific.

If you want to claim it is, and have any credibility, you will need to substantiate that claim.

Quote
No, it hasn't been and measuring it would violate established hydrostatic laws.
No, it would violate your false assumptions, as I already explained.
It has been measured, and doesn't violate any laws.

Again, the surface of water is level, not flat. Noting that level in this context means an equipotential surface. This is easily seen with a water droplet.
They clearly arent' flat. So your claim is pure BS.


Quote
There are a few, but the one most central to our discussion is that water's surface (of non-miniscule surface area / volume, and under natural conditions) at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal.
That is not a natural law. Instead, it is an outright lie promoted by FEers to pretend Earth couldn't possibly be round.

Quote
This is a trivially demonstrated natural law
You mean it is trivial to refute, as I have already done.

Quote
Nature didn't conspire to make you stupid and wrong, you just are frequently
And there you go with more pathetic insults.
I'm not the stupid one here.

Grow up.

Quote
You're still confused about the terminology.
Again, that seems to be you.
Stop just repeating the same refuted BS and try to justify it.

Quote
The natural law of gravity; the repeated and consistent observation that material objects, when lifted, tend to fall once allowed to do so.
Again, easily disproven by a helium filled balloon.
You are wrong. Deal with it.

And don't worry. We can lift the helium out of a helium tank, which doens't float.

The natural law is the universal law of gravitation.
Again, you not wanting it to be a law, because you hate it because it means you are wrong about the shape of Earth doesn't magically change reality. It just means you are knowingly lying.

Quote
That's because neither he nor the reverend ever did
I already showed that was BS.
The title of the paper, written by him, clearly showed that called it an experiment.
All you are doing is wilfully rejecting relaity and promoting a pure fantasy.

Quote
Lol, "that's the ticket"!  They measured something.  That something is real.
That something is gravitation.

Quote
It really and truly doesn't exist.
Again, repeating the same lie wont make it true.

Quote
All I can do is discuss my findings and share my evidence/reasonings.
So far your only reasoning appears to be "EARTH MUST BE FLAT! ANYTHING THAT SAYS OTHERWISE IS WRONG AND UNSCIENTIFIC AND FAKE AND FICTION!!!!"

Quote
Quote
or point out an actual logical problem with it.
I've already done that repeatedly
No, you haven't.

Like I said, the closest you came to that was claiming a paradox, which was merley just you not knowing.
I explained why it isn't a pardox and explained what gravity predicts. You then said nothing further on it.

Quote
One I mentioned was the necessity for faster than light information transfer
So you have no idea what you are talking about. Got it.
There is no faster than light information transfer.
Especially considering LIGO proved that it doesn't travel at the speed of light via observations of gravitational waves.
You aren't showing any problem with gravity. You just showing a problem with your strawman of it.

And like I said before, why only attack gravity for this?
If you truly thought this nonsense, you would claim it applies for all the fundamental forces and discard them all. But it seems that because they don't indicate Earth should be round you are happy with them.

Quote
The best is the utter lack of any empirical/scientific/experimental support for the actual existence of gravitation in any way
Why is your wilful ignorance in any way a problem for gravitation?
Again, you not liking something and watning to pretend it isn't real, doesn't magically mean it isn't real.
It just means you are living in a fantasy.

Perhaps you can come back to reality at some point?

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #84 on: January 26, 2021, 01:22:26 AM »
@timeisup

Quote
How have you determined, there is a no such thing as a vacuum.

Real world experience, as well as historical and scientific study.  The ancients galvanized this truth in the phrase nequaquam vacuum - poetically translated, nature abhors a vacuum.  The study of vacuums and the apparatus that generate them is what leads to the conclusion that absolute vacuum is not attainable in reality.  Because of this generally accepted scientific fact, it is simple deduction from archimedes principle that buoyant force is always still in play - and the rates of fall must vary as a result (even if they are beyond our precision to empirically verify).

Quote
How have you determined objects do not fall at the same rate?

Archimedes principle is well established and verified over the past 2+ millenia.

Quote
Do you have experimental data to back up your claims?

Absolutely.  Archimedes' principle is experimentally validatable and validated.

Quote
Itís odd that science would disagree with you on both counts.

Science is not a person (it can't disagree), and the laws and observations I'm referencing are fundamental and without contest.  Most haven't given it adequate thought.  I'm sure many have deduced it before.

Quote
How have you been able to verify the conversation of energy?

Empirically.  This is something that has been established by other scientists (and most students) and is somewhat routinely verified.

Quote
Some people might think you pick snd choose which of the laws of science to follow based on how they fit with your flat earth belief.

Not the ones that read what I write and take the time to learn my perspective! I personally have no flat (or round or any other shape) earth belief, and what you see as "picking and choosing" is in fact just using what is available.  One of the most important parts of science is criticism, and I decry out of duty and the love of science.  The ones that love science the most are by far the most critical of it, because that is how refinement and progress occur historically.

Re: The case for Gravity and UA
« Reply #85 on: January 26, 2021, 01:52:44 PM »
The study of vacuums and the apparatus that generate them is what leads to the conclusion that absolute vacuum is not attainable in reality.
So you are fine throwing in the term "absolute" by hate me putting in "direct"?
Vacuums exist. It is just perfect ones that don't.

Because of this generally accepted scientific fact, it is simple deduction from archimedes principle that buoyant force is always still in play
However it is quite easy to see that that different will be negligible.

and the rates of fall must vary as a result
No, it doesn't.
Not until you actually have an explanation for why things fall and a way to determine what rate they should fall at.
Only if you accept gravitation do you have what you need.
But you reject that, and even reject the concept of mass.

Archimedes principle is well established and verified over the past 2+ millenia.
And tells you nothing about how quickly objects fall.

Quote
How have you been able to verify the conversation of energy?
Empirically.
So how did you establish that the energy was converted into gravitational potential energy (especially as you reject gravitation) rather than just disappearing?
Are you sure this isn't just a way to try to preserve a "fictional" concept of the conservation of energy?

Quote
Some people might think you pick snd choose which of the laws of science to follow based on how they fit with your flat earth belief.
Not the ones that read what I write and take the time to learn my perspective!
No, the more that I read what you write, the more it shows that you are merely rejecting all science that shows Earth is round, while you are happy to accept the rest so you can pretend your position is scientific.
You are even happy to accept that which is not science.

what you see as "picking and choosing" is in fact just using what is available.
No, it is outright rejecting available things which show Earth is round.

The ones that love science the most are by far the most critical of it, because that is how refinement and progress occur historically.
Being critical of it doesn't mean dismissing it as fiction or fake or unrealistic like you have been doing.
And they don't do it in an extremely dishonest way of just being extremely critical of something they don't like or which shows something they don't like.