Re: Gravity
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2019, 05:00:53 PM »
This "rising up" Earth is totally non-sense, honestly. If we were, indeed, accelerating upwards, then we would experience constant winds coming down from above.
This is exactly like saying "if the earth is spinning at 1000mph, we would be unable to stand in the supersonic crosswinds.

As I said in my very first reply. You can't apply double standards. If its good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
Well then you'd admit that this theory is flawed then because we can't feel the 1000 mph crosswind and we can't feel your constant winds from above how can you claim to be smarter than us or right in any way.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2019, 05:08:38 PM »
No. The theory is sound because you are making an imaginary problem that doesn't exist regardless of whether the earth is round or flat.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Gravity
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2019, 05:18:26 PM »
If it was sound, then it would be a fact and not a theory. A theory implies that there are uncertain principles that can't yet be explained. Also it is not an imaginary argument. I'm using the information supplied by the Flat Earth Society. Nowhere on the website does it explain what you attempted to explain. That means one of two things: either this information you gave me is pure conjecture on your part or the Flat Earth Society is withholding information they have about the workings of the earth for no apparent reason. Now I would also like to point out at no point has any on this form insulted you or demeaned you in any way. This what you resort to because you dislike when people disagree with you beliefs. I kept an open mind and when you presented something that seemed incorrect to me, I questioned it. In no way did you offer the same respect. You couldn't have a logical debate because that would contradict what you believe in, so instead you insulted among your "facts."

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2019, 05:20:38 PM »
Ooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

the principle applies to either theory and therefore we didn't include it, much like we don't feel we have to explain the existence of ducks on a flat earth.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2019, 05:24:02 PM »
So why is the sea, not all squashed on the sea bed?

Oh, because a partial of sea water sits on another and on another and on another all the way from the sea floor to the surface. This means high pressure on the sea floor and lower pressure as you go up. The atmosphere is the same. Air is a fluid (hence why aerodynamics study fluid dynamics). Air sits on air sits on air with the air at the surface being at the highest pressure ... 1 atmosphere.

But you weigh more than air. You sink. You weigh less than sea water ... you float. If I put you on the sea bed, your rancid corpse would travel upwards. If I filled you full of helium and blew you up to about 20 meters across, you'd float upwards in the air.

Hot air balloons float. Lead weights do not. Aircraft have wings. They push air downwards and because of Newton's theory, therefore they go up.

The sea is not squashed because it is an incompressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.

We are not applying a double standard here - truly we are not. Fluid dynamics has two branches: liquids and gases. What’s good for the liquid goose is NOT what’s good for the gas gander. Different rules apply that are consistent within each branch.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Gravity
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2019, 05:24:10 PM »
This "rising up" Earth is totally non-sense, honestly. If we were, indeed, accelerating upwards, then we would experience constant winds coming down from above.
This is exactly like saying "if the earth is spinning at 1000mph, we would be unable to stand in the supersonic crosswinds.

As I said in my very first reply. You can't apply double standards. If its good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.

Also, you guys love to use "1000mph" when talking about the Earth's rotation. But, have you ever spun a ball once a day? If you haven't, do it: you will see how slow its angular momentum is. It means that, although we are indeed moving at "1000mph" it is really slow due to the Earth's size.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2019, 06:12:47 PM »
The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.
The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.

Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.
We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Gravity
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2019, 07:14:14 PM »
The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.
The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.

Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.
We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.
Relativity has no relation to what we are talking about here. This is something Newton has described as "inertia" long before Einstein. You are right, though, there's no rate of change, no Delta, that's why we don't feel the "1000mph" crosswinds you said.

But, in order to account for gravity, you introduced a rate of change, a Delta, of 9.8 m/s² on Flat Earth's upward velocity. That is the problem, if it described reality, we would feel it.

In the Round Earth model, the Earth does not accelerate at all! And that's the reason we don't feel it.

Acceleration is, by definition, a rate of change in something's velocity, and thus, your explanation for gravity in the Flat Earth model is flawed.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 07:15:51 PM by rodriados »

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2019, 07:52:14 PM »
This is like pulling teeth.

You do feel gravity. It pulls you to the floor.

The air is also accelerating as it is pushed up with the earth, so you don't feel wind. Where would the wind take the air? It goes with the earth. Like a truck pushing a plow.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Gravity
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2019, 09:28:38 PM »
This is like pulling teeth.

You do feel gravity. It pulls you to the floor.

The air is also accelerating as it is pushed up with the earth, so you don't feel wind. Where would the wind take the air? It goes with the earth. Like a truck pushing a plow.

You feel gravity's acceleration when you're in the air, so you end up falling back to ground. When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration. And that is the point! Should we live in the model you are proposing, the opposite would happen: you would feel acceleration when staying on the ground and wouldn't feel it while on air until Earth catches you up.

Could you, please, explain how Zero-G airplane flights would work on that model of yours?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2019, 10:34:07 PM »
I don't need to explain it. Einstien already explained it. You just need to read up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Gravity
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2019, 01:21:11 AM »
I don't need to explain it. Einstien already explained it. You just need to read up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Wait, how dare you use relativity to deny gravity? What is your point, here? If you believe the Earth is flat, then you must deny relativity, as these two are incompatible with each other.

Actually, if you do believe in both, relativity brings much bigger problems to the Flat Earth even before we can start to think about winds... Therefore, all I am talking about in this thread is related to Newton's work, which can easily be proven in our daily life, and thus cannot be denied. Relativity, on the other hand, is harder to get a grasp on.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2019, 02:31:11 AM »
I don't need to explain it. Einstien already explained it. You just need to read up on it.

Yes, both sides should read up on it:
An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2019, 03:28:14 AM »
I would just like to point out that "heavy" objects don't necessarily sink. Buoyancy is not directly coupled to the weight of an object. It is directly related to density and volume. Not exactly the same thing.

For instance, I don't float well. Why? I have very little body fat. But I don't weigh much. There are extremely fat people who float very well compared to me. So you're reasoning that heavy objects sink and lighter ones float is incorrect.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2019, 11:24:13 AM »
The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.
The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.

Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.
We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.

Umm, red herring? I was directly answering your question. I am happy to discuss densities with you and how that accounts for things floating or sinking in fluids - also there is a third option: neutrally buoyant.

Also, your description above has nothing to do with relativity. Literally at all.

If the surrounding environment is experiencing UA, then if I jump into the air, and become part of the surrounding environment, why do I fall down?

This is a contradiction in the proposal of UA that has not been satisfactory addressed, and until it is, UA actually violates the equivalence principle.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 11:25:45 AM by QED »
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Gravity
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2019, 09:44:23 PM »
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.

Wowa, wait a minute.  When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor.  I feel it very much.  Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it.   Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2019, 12:23:02 AM »
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.

Wowa, wait a minute.  When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor.  I feel it very much.  Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it.   Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.

Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2019, 12:35:13 AM »
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.

Wowa, wait a minute.  When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor.  I feel it very much.  Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it.   Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.

Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.

This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.

When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.

We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.

I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.

But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.

FEers take loose definitions and create chaos.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Gravity
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2019, 12:56:50 AM »
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.

Wowa, wait a minute.  When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor.  I feel it very much.  Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it.   Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.

Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.

This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.

When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.

We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.

I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.

But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.

FEers take loose definitions and create chaos.

You are right in doing so. I'm no specialist in physics (I'm a Computer Scientist/Software Engineer) and thus my writing in the subject may not be as rigorous as it should be.

What I meant by "feel acceleration" is the human perception, or body sensation, of being accelerated.

So I presumed that, if the Earth were constantly accelerating "upwards", we would never reach an inertial frame of reference in relation to Earth. It seems to me, that normal force would not keep up with this earthly acceleration, and thus we would "feel" the Earth accelerating. Am I right?

Re: Gravity
« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2019, 03:40:21 AM »
This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.
When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.
We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.
I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.
But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.

Lets go in parts. Some lights over the issue?

First, gravity is not a force, acceleration is, it takes energy from nothing. Yes, I know, but wait.

Gravity is a sliding condition of any mass towards a deformation of space.  The deformation can be caused by different reasons, one very well know is the presence of any mass in space, it deforms space towards its center of mass, larger the mass, larger the deformation.

What do you mean by "normal force" counteracting your weight? Is there any counterpart abnormal force?
And no, without any acceleration you will not whatsoever feel any "force" or pressure against your body.

And no, when you slide in the space deformation, that you say "falling", and I assume you are saying falling from an airplane for example, you never feel any force or any acceleration, in true, when you free fall is exactly when the sliding counter balance any other possible holding or suspension, and you feel absolutely nothing.  Ask any skydiver about what they feel when falling, nothing, just the air flowing against their bodies, nothing less, the body (mass) is in pure free form of freedom, all organs accommodate inside the body, without compressing each other, all the limbs relax, even your blood flow becomes easier and you feel euphoric since your brain receives better blood flow and oxygenation.  I have several friends skydivers, the sensation they present is that they are completely stopped and the ground rushes towards them, no other way around.  They say that when the parachute opens, it is like a strong force just push you up in a tremendous jolt and speed.



There is also a new definition about kinetic energy applied to a mass in space.  What always make scientists accept with reluctance, is the definition that a vector force of movement can only be deformed by another vector force (kinetic vector).  Accepting is one thing, understand the basics principles is another thing.  In a large void of space, a steady mass (almost impossible to exist) has space deformation all around it, balanced by itself to the center of such mass.  This deformation makes the mass itself to try to slide towards its center, and it compresses itself to do it.  This is basically the accretion process that converts nebulas into stars, planets, etc, and what makes piles of rubble and dust in enough size to become a ball in space.  But that mass is a piece of rock, can not compress itself anymore, so it is there, steady, doing nothing, with a space deformation balanced around.   Then came a smaller rock in high speed and bounces this original rock.  Kinetic energy is transferred to the original rock, it deform the steady vectors inside and it protrudes with some amplitude to the impacting vector direction, creating a momentum in the center of mass that changes from the center.  This movement also pushes the space deformation along, and now it is not balanced anymore, there is a sliding deformation towards the resulting kinetic vector, but as the original mass was completely stopped and balanced, the deformation will be towards the same direction of movement of the impacting small rock.   This unbalanced deformation will allow the original rock to slide into that less dense space, the original rock moves.  When it moves, its internal vector moves along, and it becomes an infinite cycle, rock slides, vector moves, space deformation moves, rock slides, forever.   This will continue for eternity, until another kinetic vector interferes or another mass space deformation adds sliding conditions to this rock, so it can change path.   This new theory may explain things we never really understood, and may explain why everything in the universe is in motion.  It also explains how photons with no mass, can change direction under sliding conditions, what we were calling "momentum" for many years.  It is exactly the "momentum" that is a little bit off-center and creates this effect.  The amount of sliding force in a regular mass is proportional to the mass, the speed it moves is proportional to how much off-center the "momentum" is set.  Photons travel at speed of light because their no-mass condition allows very little energy to create a large off-center momentum, when compared to its infinite small own space deformation in its wave interior, it moves at fantastic speed, and that is constant, in a regular space you can not speed up or break up photons.  You can change the time it takes to travel a certain distance if changing the space medium, like traveling in glass, water or gas, for example.  But the photon speed is the same, it just takes more time to bounce around and reach its destination.  The side of the wave that first find a denser medium will increase the time for travel, what for us, appears as a change in angle of insertion towards that side and angle.  It is incredible how we humans could find formulas to predict exactly this very complicated energy wave distortion, not knowing how exactly it happens, we think we know what a photon is.



So, your "gravity acceleration" is a little more complicated, we are changing the way we see it, trying to find better explanations for everything else, and actually a sliding condition based on space density changes is promising better understanding, without altering what Einstein predicted.

The best way for humans to understanding it, is as the space is a gel, denser water, our bodies change the density of such gel very close to our skin, and small particles tend to slide towards our skin and stick to it.   When we move inside this water or gel, we are moving very little this space deformation ahead of us, like a force field, and we can easily slide into this less dense gel.  Also, because the center of momentum or deformation is more pronounced to the direction of our movement, our back has less deformation and the gel on the back compress and pushes us forward, what make us move in that direction forever, if no other vector could interfere and change such condition.

Our brain is slowly trying to understand what it can not, so we simplify things to make our life easier. 


At the top I wrote "takes energy from nothing".


Think about two big, huge rocks in void space, steady state, no moving at all, one thousand light year from another.  Both has its own space deformation balanced to their centers, no moving.  But there is an itchy condition between them, very far away and very little.  The space deformation of one is interfering with the sliding situation of the other, this micron off-center movement of the deformation, causes they to start to slide one to another very slowly, microns per thousand years.  This sliding situation transport the space deformation along, what increases the sliding speed between them.  After a billion years, perhaps, they will pack a kinetic energy (momentum) almost impossible to describe, and at some point they will colide one to another.  The packed energy would be so large, the mass compression will be unimaginable, they would fuse their atoms one to another, even creating different heavy elements, radiation in wide spectrum to shine a galaxy, and something else.   But they were only rock, big yes, but nothing else, the energy released could even be larger than mc². They were picking speed and packing energy along the way, but from where?  The answer is:  From nothing.