161

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 01:04:23 PM »

you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...

No one is trying to debunk gravity. [/b]

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity

We are. We are also discussing gravitation, which counteracts it to some extent.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.

Hold on. You're making this sound as if the acceleration caused by gravitation (in either RET or FET - pick your favourite) is something else than "physical". What is it?

i wouldnt expect any different reply from you Pete.

yes, UA is debunking gravity, its saying gravity doesnt exist on earth, its just acceleration.  i have shown how that cannot be.

i have already explained in detail why gravity cant 'counteract' this acceleration, its quite simple.

i dont expect you to agree with me and that UA does not work, no point in going on.  i have provided the proof, and its all in my above reply.

162

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 12:58:39 PM »

UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level

But there is a way, and it was already provided to you. As your altitude increases, so does celestial gravitation, which in turn causes you to perceive less of the Earth's acceleration.

this incredibly important aspect of UA, and its two whole lines in the wiki:

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

I love how the description is basically saying its gravity, but not its not gravity.  I mean, this is a pretty significant detail to be left to two lines of text.  Putting aside that you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...it doesnt resolve the issue of differential observed gravity values that i have brought up.

The issue is that UA is based on the earth accelerating upward a 1G.  The acceleration has the same affect of gravity per the equivalence principle.  i agree with this 100%, there would be no difference.  the issue is that we are not talking gravity, if we were, then the negative gravitational (celestial) would indeed act to cancel out some of the gravitation affects and you would observe lower than 1G at higher elevations as you approach the heavenly bodies.

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity, UA is saying the earth is physically accelerating upwards.  You have two accellerations, for giggles lets just use the following math:

sea level; elevation 0 meters; 1G (9.807 m/s²)
Top of mount everest = elevation 4,900 meters = gravity is 9.773 m/s²

that is a difference of 0.034 m/s²  which is the catch-up acceleration that the bottom of the mountain would be 'chasing' the top...

simple kinematics would show that over the course of a year, the top of the mountain would of decreased by 22,338 meters...yeah, kind of an issue.

X = x₀ + v^ot + 0.5at²

of course the gravitational difference would be decreasing as the the top of the mountain lowered and this would eventually equalize so i know the 22,338m is not accurate...but it proves the point that you cant have two different accelerations on earth, as acceleration is related to MOTION....you can have two different gravity (FORCE) values however, and thats very easily defined based on distance from the center of the mass.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.  UA is debunked.

163

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: June 03, 2018, 10:10:03 PM »

Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?

It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?

At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.

Do you believe that there are planets in our solar system?  if so, we can observe that those planets are spinning and that their rotations are not slowing.  why is the earth different, they all have atmospheres as well, many more substantial than our own?   For example you can measure the rotational speed of Jupiter by measuring how often the red spot takes to make a revolution, etc.

Sure, there are planets. The earth is not a planet. Planet comes from the Greek meaning wandering star.

Why is the earth special? Well that is a 'what is the meaning of life' type question. There is no hard answer. But the earth is definitely special.

It is the only place in the whole universe we have observed complex life. It is unlike the little whirling balls in the sky. Why do none of those have life? Of the billions and billions of planets out there, not a radio signal, not a visit from anyone, absolute silence. One might hypothesise that a flat earth with a protective firmament is a prerequisite for life. And that's why earth is special and the only place we find life.

That's fair enough, thanks for the thought out reply.

164

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 09:04:31 PM »

i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA

Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?

strange is that the following statement was in reply to your previous post, see below:

The gravitation/acceleration model is indeed accurate as to what we feel and how things behave, but GR provides the math that shows why gravity is less at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  This is possible because gravity is based on the mass and distance from the center of mass.  UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  this is observed and a fact that FET is not denying, but in doing so you are saying that there are two accelerations, which would have to imply the top of the mountain is going up slower and there would be contraction in the mountain itself as the ground would be catching up to it.  obviously this isnt happening.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 03, 2018, 07:14:27 PM »

They got the results they wanted to prove the earth is a ball. To hell with the method. When you criticise that as a scientist, you are stoned walled by those adhering to conventional wisdom.

Thork, neither experiment had anything to do with proving the earth was a ball.  why would they, in the 1960s we had known the world was a globe for nearly 2000 years!  the point of the experiment was to prove experimentally Einstein's time dilation equation, which they nailed by the way.  The second experiment had nothing to do with fixing any errors, it occured on the 25th anniversary of the original test and they wanted to see if they could improve upon the accuracy of testing, which they did.

The time dilation equation is quite simple, so maybe if you dont agree with the math used by these experiments and/or the flight paths you could use your flat earth map to draw to flight paths, one going west and one going east and do the math to show the alternate flights as you proposed could provide the same results?

166

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 07:09:41 PM »

i seem to be the one who understands the theory here...

It sure doesn't sound like it.

more rambling (exhibiting a first year uni level of physics), with an ad hominem at the end...

Yeah, you have some work to do. Instead of telling everyone how smart you are, maybe put in a little effort instead of hand waving away the bits you don't understand.

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.

You should probably take a look at the physics books first before offering them to someone else. You might also want to even put in a little time researching before replying again. This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!

very information first post above.  on the second, you are directly quoting me on something that i didnt type and is no where on this thread, thats interesting. third, i dont think anyone other that you and maybe a few other FET folks think i am coming off foolish.   I have used actual GR/SR mathematics as my background.

i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA, and i will accept that you wont be providing anything to the conversation as again you conveniently neglect to address it

167

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:43:37 PM »

Interesting again that you confuse basic physics terms...why would my follow up question relate to General Relativity when i specifically said FET didnt beleive that and my question was on General Relativity.  Do you know the difference between these?

Again? Have I conversed with you before? And it is not me confusing anything. You have 22 posts. How do I know what you are thinking? You said you had follow up questions. Most people go from special relativity (the building block for Universal Acceleration) straight to gravity (the counter to UA), the idea being to try to show orbital mechanics to be correct and there for earth must have formed into a ball under its own weight and be round.

My question for the FE experts relates to the Hafele-Keating experiment conducted back in early 70s/late 60s if i recall correctly.  They did an experiment to verify Einsteins prediction of time dilation using atomic clocks.  One plane flew west around the world, the other flew east around the world.  Both went around twice if i recall.  The experiment was to compare the time difference of the clocks on those planes versus the control clocks left on the ground.  both flew at the same height roughly so time change relative to gravitational potential is negligible.  The plane travelling east had a greater overall velocity (travelling with rotation of the earth) compared to one going west.

The results of this test matched up nearly perfect as predicted by Einstein's calculations, within 2% of the expected result if i recall correctly.

now the ONLY way for that to happen is the world is rotating.  if we were on a flat earth, the two should be the same relative time, they did not. 

this experiment has been conducted again since then with even more precise clocks, once in the mid 1990s using multiple clocks and the difference from predicted by formulas was even closer.

what would be the FET explanation for this?

Why does the earth need to spin? Only a distance needs to be travelled. If I get in a rocket and travel faster than light away from a clock, the theory is the clock goes backwards. If I am under the speed of light but still fast, the clock slows. If I accelerate towards the clock it speeds up. Where is the necessity for spin? They happened to make a cock and bull story about going around the globe, but a circle around the equator of a flat earth would achieve the same thing. It is about motion through time and space, not spinning balls.

well first off, i am sorry that i didnt go down the path that you liked that you had a pre-made repost ready to go and required some additional thought.  But my post was very clear, you are the one that decided to try and interpret what i was going to maybe ask.  i was just looking for confirmation that yes, FET agreed.

As for the experiment, i understand how time dilation works.  the original experiment and subsequent re-do in the 1990s showed there was indeed a velocity difference between the two flights.  one went east, the other west.   if the earth wasnt spinning, how would you account for the significant difference between the two??!   

but your last line is what i was kind of expecting, the whole thing was faked.  how about the experiment in the 1990s then to replicate it?  they provided real time tracking of the two airplanes throughout the entire trip to show speed and distance covered.  they also repeated it and used multiple clocks.  Same result.  the earth is a sphere that rotates, thus the velocity difference between two planes.

168

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:37:28 PM »

Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?

It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?

At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.

Do you believe that there are planets in our solar system?  if so, we can observe that those planets are spinning and that their rotations are not slowing.  why is the earth different, they all have atmospheres as well, many more substantial than our own?   For example you can measure the rotational speed of Jupiter by measuring how often the red spot takes to make a revolution, etc.

169

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:28:52 PM »

No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?

You fundamentally missed the point. One does not have to accept GR piecemeal to point out that GR itself accepts that the equivalence would be there. To flip it on its head: you are telling us that your gravitational model would be identical to the one we're experiencing. We merely choose to take your word for it.

GR was established under the principle of equivalence, it is the beginning building block of the GR.

The gravitation/acceleration model is indeed accurate as to what we feel and how things behave, but GR provides the math that shows why gravity is less at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  This is possible because gravity is based on the mass and distance from the center of mass.  UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  this is observed and a fact that FET is not denying, but in doing so you are saying that there are two accelerations, which would have to imply the top of the mountain is going up slower and there would be contraction in the mountain itself as the ground would be catching up to it.  obviously this isnt happening.

170

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:22:32 PM »

so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

i seem to be the one who understands the theory here, all you have done is try to confuse terms to avoid the obvious errors in UA.  We are talking about proper acceleration  as the discussion was about the earth reaching C, and thus the mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (acting upon it), that has to increase exponentially as its velocity/mass continues to increase.  Why bring coordinate acceleration into this discussion, other than to throw out a buzz word to try and deflect?  we are not talking about perceived acceleration from some outside observer?  But why would i expect a FET person to understand GR and SR, if you understood the theory and math involved then you would not be able to believe in a flat earth. 

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.

171

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 03:00:14 AM »

so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

As suggested in the Wiki, the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Tom, now i am totally confused.  So the moon and stars have a gravitational pull that affects the earth, but the earth has no gravity?  And what you are saying with this explanation given the premise that the earth is constantly accelerating upward, is that somehow the mountain top is accelerating slower than at ground level?  that explanation opens even more serious consequences for the validity of UA.

172

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 02:55:04 AM »

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.

This is typically the reply of the ignorant round earth logician. All hostility, no humility.

just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

I'd suggest reading the wiki/FAQ and doing a simple forum search. It actually isn't all that hard.

just found that info and saw Tom's response as well, will respond there

173

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 02:43:42 AM »

so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

174

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 02:26:25 AM »

whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

You will not have a higher mass with speed, but in fact, will carry more energy. However, the acceleration towards the ground should indeed be equal no matter of your elevation, while on the mt Everest, the acceleration towards the ground is slightly lower than the 9.81 m/s² we have at the sea level. I am still waiting for an answer from flat earthers about this one. Btw, I also want to be answered about that ^^'
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9856.msg154387

no, relative mass increases with velocity compared to initial mass.   this of course requires a specific amount of energy based on the mass/velocity.  This really doesnt have anything to do with my question on varying values of gravity measured, was to point out the flawed understanding of why UA would not allow earth to reach C...

175

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 03, 2018, 02:21:55 AM »

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

Whoever made the above comment has a very poor understanding of physics...

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

Yeah, I think you have some homework to do...

so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

relative mass is easy to determine if you know a velocity.  its initial mass divided by the square root of 1 minus v²/c²...once v = c, then you are dividing your initial mass by zero...


the wiki provides a horrible example why an object cant reach the speed of light.  i agree, it cant reach C, but not because of the speed based on an observer outside of the earth.  the speed an outside observer sees is not the proper speed to object is going

i noticed you glossed over the question in my post, even though you managed to quote pretty much the rest of it, I will repost for clarity....that is why do we observe/measure different gravity/acceleration based on height on a flat earth?

176

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 03, 2018, 01:23:16 AM »

I'll refer you to our resident bendy light expert 'Parsifal' for a better explanation of that one. In case you are wondering, Pete Svarrior is our resident bendy darkness expert, but that is advanced FE mechanics.

by expert, you mean these people have advanced physics and mathematical training?  something beyond an entry level physics course that a psychology major might have to take?  doesnt matter as all the maths i put forth are all covered well in any entry level course, but i have wondered if there are any FET folks that are indeed experts?   would be fascinating to know the technical background on some of these people as it relates to being able to provide answers.  I see a lot of ideas, but not much maths so far on this website.  Most RE items can be explained mathematically.  for example, the time dilation question in my above response, i can provide the math that shows the expected time loss between the stationary clock and the clock that went west and one that went east by assuming the rotation speed of the earth.  OR, we could indeed take the actual results and back calculate what the earth's rotation speed would have to be to get those results.  not the same can be said about many FE theories, but i will be addressing those in subsequent posts, sorry for the tangent.

177

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 03, 2018, 01:10:11 AM »

For those flat earthers that believe in Universal Acceleration, Special Relativity and consequently time dilation are essential. They explain how the the earth can keep accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and yet never reach the speed of light.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

I suspect your follow up questions will relate to gravity and you'll show me some awful hotch potch shoe horned thing like this ...



But scroll up from the image on that page and you'll see it is a misleading diagram.
https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_massive/index.html#Misleading

You may then be tempted to bring in the bending of light, but I'll give you fair warning on that one, bendy light is something that goes in FE's favour. I'll refer you to our resident bendy light expert 'Parsifal' for a better explanation of that one. In case you are wondering, Pete Svarrior is our resident bendy darkness expert, but that is advanced FE mechanics.

well, my question has nothing to do with any of the information posted, and i had my suspicions that FE believed in time dilation.  As a side note, I (and any one else that has knowledge in physics) despises that illustration of the gravity and time-space curving.  I brought this up in my Tides thread that  has seem to have lost interest after my last series of unanswered questions.

Interesting again that you confuse basic physics terms...why would my follow up question relate to General Relativity when i specifically said FET didnt beleive that and my question was on General Relativity.  Do you know the difference between these?

My question for the FE experts relates to the Hafele-Keating experiment conducted back in early 70s/late 60s if i recall correctly.  They did an experiment to verify Einsteins prediction of time dilation using atomic clocks.  One plane flew west around the world, the other flew east around the world.  Both went around twice if i recall.  The experiment was to compare the time difference of the clocks on those planes versus the control clocks left on the ground.  both flew at the same height roughly so time change relative to gravitational potential is negligible.  The plane travelling east had a greater overall velocity (travelling with rotation of the earth) compared to one going west.

The results of this test matched up nearly perfect as predicted by Einstein's calculations, within 2% of the expected result if i recall correctly.

now the ONLY way for that to happen is the world is rotating.  if we were on a flat earth, the two should be the same relative time, they did not. 

this experiment has been conducted again since then with even more precise clocks, once in the mid 1990s using multiple clocks and the difference from predicted by formulas was even closer.

what would be the FET explanation for this?

178

Flat Earth Theory / Time Dilation?

« on: June 02, 2018, 11:20:45 PM »

Curious if FET believes in Time Dilation as described by Einstein's Special Relativity?  I believe FET does not believe in General Relativity, but was curious about SR and Time Dilation in particular?  I have some follow up questions depending on the answer, but i was not able to find out thru a search of the wikik

179

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 02, 2018, 11:14:59 PM »

whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

180

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: June 01, 2018, 07:32:53 PM »

if you go to a beach and watch a ship disappear than pull of you binoculars and zoom in past the horizon you should see the ship. If there was a curvature, you shouldn't be able to see the ship because the curve would have already gone over it. Ladies and Gentleman its all about perspective. I rest my case. The curvature has been debunked.

that is a mighty big leap to make there.  i have been following this forum for a number of months and i live near the ocean.  I have heard this line quite a few times about using a telescope to see the ship again.  so, last time i was at the beach i brought my 4" telescope with the most powerful eyepiece i had.  guess what....the portion of the sailboat that you couldnt see...still couldnt see.   i find it interesting that you say "it should" which implies you have never tried.  this is a very simple exercise to do.   and before you ask, i have tried this on a second trip as well.