So what do you, the Flat Earth Society, have to say about that? Can you find a better explanation that accounts for the weaker gravity at the equator and the Coriolis effect? Good luck.I can't speak for TFES, but here is what they say:
The Coriolis EffectIt does get just a bit hilarious with: grinding against each other as gears at the equator line. Doesn't seem to fit with highs and lows rotating in opposite directions.
Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.
Water Currents
As for water currents on a large scale; they're simply gradually put into motion by the winds. Water currents in the Northern Hemisphere will tend to rotate in one direction while currents in the Southern Hemisphere will tend to turn in another direction.
Celestial Gravitation
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.
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
I think it depends on which site he is referring to. I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity. He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass. Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it. If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.
Pretty sure I did in the OP.Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
I think it depends on which site he is referring to. I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity. He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass. Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it. If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.
Who said anything about gravity? ???
Pretty sure I did in the OP.Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
I think it depends on which site he is referring to. I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity. He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass. Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it. If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.
Who said anything about gravity? ???
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.
Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects. "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET. They are indeed two different things. Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not. The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity". I hope that clears up the confusion.
Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun? And why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons? Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides? "Celestial gravitation" is a bogus explanation, and definitely doesn't pass Occam's Razor.You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.
Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects. "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET. They are indeed two different things. Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not. The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity". I hope that clears up the confusion.
Please come up some with actual evidence (that is not pure guesswork) for your selective "gravitation".You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?What? ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET? If so, I apologize that they misled you.
Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.
Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects. "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET. They are indeed two different things. Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not. The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity". I hope that clears up the confusion.
Are you the same guy that guy exposed as a shill by wildheretic?Depends on what you mean by "exposed as a shill." If you mean "kicked off due to a misunderstanding," then yes. He thought I was three different people simply because I posted some replies from the airport while I was traveling back from break, and then he was so busy patting himself on the back to realize that he was wrong. Needless to say, he was an idiot. It doesn't matter, though.
Can you tell me which principle makes our atmosphere basically an "encapsulated" entity? Ie: Why does the atmosphere not taper out in inverse squared fashion as described by gravitation. I think that is important to understand, as one would have to assume the atmosphere is the "vehicle" we're in that is moving otherwise, a bird should be able to fly 1,000 mph faster to the west.The atmosphere doesn't taper out by the inverse square law because it is being held against the surface by gravity. It extends away from the surface because of pressure.
Can you tell me which principle makes our atmosphere basically an "encapsulated" entity? Ie: Why does the atmosphere not taper out in inverse squared fashion as described by gravitation. I think that is important to understand, as one would have to assume the atmosphere is the "vehicle" we're in that is moving otherwise, a bird should be able to fly 1,000 mph faster to the west.The atmosphere doesn't taper out by the inverse square law because it is being held against the surface by gravity. It extends away from the surface because of pressure.
If I understand you correctly, the "vehicle" you're thinking of is the reference frame of the surface or atmosphere.
Can you tell me which principle makes our atmosphere basically an "encapsulated" entity? Ie: Why does the atmosphere not taper out in inverse squared fashion as described by gravitation. I think that is important to understand, as one would have to assume the atmosphere is the "vehicle" we're in that is moving otherwise, a bird should be able to fly 1,000 mph faster to the west.The atmosphere doesn't taper out by the inverse square law because it is being held against the surface by gravity. It extends away from the surface because of pressure.
If I understand you correctly, the "vehicle" you're thinking of is the reference frame of the surface or atmosphere.
Why is there a defined edge? Why does the ozone sit above our regular gaseous mixture that is a lot less dense than it? I'm just trying to understand how gravity holds our atmosphere and you have given yourself a lot of praise so you're surely qualified to teach me a thing or two.
You say that the surface of the earth has some kind of grip on air?
| I am sure you could read up on it as easily as anyone else can! But it seems that if you don't understand something you immediatley question its validity - or simply call it a fake. Most people (I hope) when they don't understand something they read up what they can on it, then make up their mind whether to question it or not. "Why is there a defined edge? " - there is no "defined edge", the atmospheric pressure falls of roughly exponentially. Now I'm no expert on ozone! But I would guess that ozone does not sit sit above our regular gaseous mixture, but the ozone layer is simply where most ozone is produced by ultra-violet light, which the ozone blocks (to some extent). The O3 will gradually sink, but being unstable will gradually revert to O2. See the diagram to the right. The only ways the earth "grips" the atmosphere is gravity which keeps in on earth in the first place and drag which keeps it (generally[1]) moving at the same speed as the earth. | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Atmospheric_ozone.svg/1162px-Atmospheric_ozone.svg.png) |
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...
You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...The made the whole thing up about gravity. It's kind of like saying magic is pulling things down.
You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
Sort of, if by magic you mean the same exact magic that we've found applies to satellites, the moon, the earth, all the planets and their moons, and the sun, as well as the tides. And it sure as hell beats your "celestial gravitation" concept. If it's not gravity accelerating things downward, then what is? Why is there clearly higher atmospheric pressure at lower altitudes? Bonus question: Why are there two high and low tides each day?I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...They made the whole thing up about gravity. It's kind of like saying magic is pulling things down.
You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...The made the whole thing up about gravity. It's kind of like saying magic is pulling things down.
You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...
You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
Pretty sure he was talking about me, considering I'm the one that mentions NASA 3 times between my sig and my profile text :PI was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...
You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
Who ever said I was "the NASA expert"! (Not I said the fly - as they say in the classics). I am no NASA expert. I do have a smattering of ideas - well one does after more decades than I would care to admit to - but for actual detail I look this up, as you could do just as easily!
There could be a good reason for "You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to taper off exponentially".
That is because gravity DOES NOT taper off exponentially. If the earth is taken as having perfect spherical symmetry, then gravity falls off as the square of distance from the earth's centre of mass. The earth is not quite perfect sphere, but is extreme close. Also the nett gravitation will be affected by any other massive bodies in the vicinity (eg, the moon, but that is not very significant till we get about 10% of the way there)
I did say that the atmospheric pressure falls of approximately exponentially and that's a different kettle of fish altogther.
Still no answer, just a bunch of misdirection and fluff. And flat earthers are the evasive ones. If gravity doesnt just stop, then why is there a distinct edge to our atmosphere? You know, the one that burns up objects the enter through it at 2500 degrees (thank god that doesn't effect manned space shuttles or we'd have some crispy cosmonauts)
Does the moon pull our atmosphere as it goes by? Or only water 100km further away? Is there any photo or video evidence of this?
Still no answer, just a bunch of misdirection and fluff. And flat earthers are the evasive ones. If gravity doesnt just stop, then why is there a distinct edge to our atmosphere? You know, the one that burns up objects the enter through it at 2500 degrees (thank god that doesn't effect manned space shuttles or we'd have some crispy cosmonauts)"Still no answer" to what?
Does the moon pull our atmosphere as it goes by? Or only water 100km further away? Is there any photo or video evidence of this?
There IS NO REGION THAT BURNS UP OBJECTS "that enter through it at 2500 degrees"! I imagine you are referring to the thermosphere. And to get you really concerned about "crispy cosmonauts" it is the region from about 100 km to 600 km - yes, you guessed it - right where the ISS orbits! I am sure this has been "put to bed" dozens of times, but here goes again: You might also realise that the air density in this region is almost nothing! So, wht air there is might be very hot, but it is not dense enough to crisp a potato flake, let alone the ISS! take a gander at the picture on the right (from: http://www.geek.com/science/2200f-space-shuttle-heat-tiles-wont-burn-your-bare-hands-1559855/ (http://www.geek.com/science/2200f-space-shuttle-heat-tiles-wont-burn-your-bare-hands-1559855/)). The "atmosphere" in the thermosphere is infinitely less dense (and poorer heat conductor) than that tile! | Why 2200°F space shuttle heat tiles won’t burn your bare hands (http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Tile.jpg) |
Types and Causes of Tidal Cycles - If the earth were a perfect sphere without large continents, all areas on the planet would experience two equally proportioned high and low tides every lunar day. The planet's large continents, however, block the westward passage of the tidal bulges as the earth rotates. Unable to move freely around the globe, these tides establish complex patterns within each ocean basin that often differ greatly from tidal patterns of adjacent ocean basins or other regions of the same ocean basin.
What Affects Tides? - The relative distances and positions of the sun, moon and earth all affect the size and magnitude of the earth's two tidal bulges. At a smaller scale, the magnitude of tides can be strongly influenced by the shape of the shoreline. When oceanic tidal bulges hit wide continental margins, the height of the tides can be magnified. Conversely, mid-oceanic islands not near continental margins typically experience very small tides of 1 meter or less.The tides are caused by a relatively small wave moving around the earth "piling up" against continental margins. The very complicated sea-floor of the continental shelves lead to equally comlpex tide patterns in some area.
If there is no edge, then what's the difference between high altitude, low orbit, and high orbit?As I have stated elsewhere I have given up on answering innane questions from someone who will not open there own eyes and SEE!
SO have we never technically left the atmosphere? Besides supposedly in our space programs infancy in the Apollo missions?
If the ISS is in the atmosphere then why does the photos and videos supposedly taken from out the windows show a distinct edge, you know... The thing everyone talks about in regards to atmosphere?
And if you say that the gas particles in thermosphere are hot, what heats them up? Are the particles in the ISS immune from the suns radiation for whatever reason? I imagine it would be especially rough considering there isn't a lot of other molecules to transfer the heat to.
Give me a break.
If there is no edge, then what's the difference between high altitude, low orbit, and high orbit?You asked for it. You don't get a break.
SO have we never technically left the atmosphere? Besides supposedly in our space programs infancy in the Apollo missions?
If the ISS is in the atmosphere then why does the photos and videos supposedly taken from out the windows show a distinct edge, you know... The thing everyone talks about in regards to atmosphere?
And if you say that the gas particles in thermosphere are hot, what heats them up? Are the particles in the ISS immune from the suns radiation for whatever reason? I imagine it would be especially rough considering there isn't a lot of other molecules to transfer the heat to.
Give me a break.
Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun?
And why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons? Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides?
You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it. Surely the earth, objects on the earth and stellar objects are all the same kind of matter!Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun?They don't, in FET. According to FET every celestial body is not traveling around the Earth, but rather the celestial hub (a fixed point above the north pole). I'm sure you can see that it is not the same in any way as what RE has to say.QuoteAnd why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons? Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides?Because scientists wanted it that way. It's all about how the math is interpreted; scientists choose to assume that gravitation works the same on Earth as it does in space, but their reasoning for choosing to do so is flawed. It's really more faith-based than rational.
| Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". Now before you dismiss Cavendish* (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of G determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value. You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference. The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source. None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!) | This table summarises the modern work: (http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.17992.1403186108!/image/WEB_schlamminger.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/WEB_schlamminger.jpg)from: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-method-closes-in-on-gravitational-constant-1.15427 (http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-method-closes-in-on-gravitational-constant-1.15427) |
| * | Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it. Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error. In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity. Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless". Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis! |
You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it.
You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it.
No I don't.
You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it.
No I don't.
Celestial Gravitation
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.
In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).We are constantly told "gravity" (which in common usage is nothing more than the "gravitational field due to the earth") is a "fake".
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
Gravitation exists on the Earth. You throw a ball up, it comes back down. Obviously that is a form of gravitation. I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.You (along with I believe every FEer) have not yet answered my question.
In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
| Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". Now before you dismiss Cavendish[1] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of "G" determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value. You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then. His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference. The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source. None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!) | This table summarises the modern work: (http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.17992.1403186108!/image/WEB_schlamminger.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/WEB_schlamminger.jpg)from: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-method-closes-in-on-gravitational-constant-1.15427 (http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-method-closes-in-on-gravitational-constant-1.15427) |
| [1] | Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it. Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error. In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity. Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless". Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis! |
Gravitation exists on the Earth. You throw a ball up, it comes back down. Obviously that is a form of gravitation. I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.You (along with I believe every FEer) have not yet answered my question.QuoteIn any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
I had hoped not to repeat all this again, but I guess I have to!
So many dismiss gravitation, but just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result of about 5,500 kg/m3 surprised everybody,but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!
Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G".
Now before you dismiss Cavendish[1] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of "G" determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value. You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.
There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then.
His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.
Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference.
The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.
None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)
When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.
[1] Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it. Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error. In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless". Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!
Well, I apologize, after seeing that the rest of your post was based on a faulty proposition I decided to skip it, as your posts sometimes give me a headache (this time for a change at least the meandering was somewhat on topic), but as it happens, I don't know what's being observed in the Cavendish Experiment. Obviously something is causing something to react somehow, but I do think that Miles Mathis makes some excellent points that can't be dismissed out-of-hand, however eccentric he might seem (Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist yet he's revered as something of a God to you people, after all) and we must be cognizant of the fact that there's no reason to assume that the theory behind the Cavendish Experiment isn't flawed, or misunderstood.Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
This is why an open-minded approach to FE research is so important. Rather than deny something that has been observed many, many times by people of all walks of life, we should be pondering this fascinating experiment, and striving to understand it. To me, that's what the modern Flat Earth Society is all about, or at least should be.
Whatever the case may be, the Cavendish Experiment does not prove that the Earth is not flat.
Gravitation exists on the Earth. You throw a ball up, it comes back down. Obviously that is a form of gravitation. I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.You (along with I believe every FEer) have not yet answered my question.QuoteIn any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
I had hoped not to repeat all this again, but I guess I have to!
So many dismiss gravitation, but just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result of about 5,500 kg/m3 surprised everybody,but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!
Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G".
Now before you dismiss Cavendish[1] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of "G" determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value. You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.
There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then.
His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.
Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference.
The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.
None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)
When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.
[1] Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it. Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error. In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless". Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!
Well, I apologize, after seeing that the rest of your post was based on a faulty proposition I decided to skip it, as your posts sometimes give me a headache (this time for a change at least the meandering was somewhat on topic), but as it happens, I don't know what's being observed in the Cavendish Experiment. Obviously something is causing something to react somehow, but I do think that Miles Mathis makes some excellent points that can't be dismissed out-of-hand, however eccentric he might seem (Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist yet he's revered as something of a God to you people, after all) and we must be cognizant of the fact that there's no reason to assume that the theory behind the Cavendish Experiment isn't flawed, or misunderstood.
This is why an open-minded approach to FE research is so important. Rather than deny something that has been observed many, many times by people of all walks of life, we should be pondering this fascinating experiment, and striving to understand it. To me, that's what the modern Flat Earth Society is all about, or at least should be.
Whatever the case may be, the Cavendish Experiment does not prove that the Earth is not flat.
Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, et al did not invent anything or make up anything. They simply discovered what was there. If they didn't someone else would have!
It sure beats your aether. That's just fantasy bullshit to explain away the evidence that the earth is round. At least our explanations are mathematically defined and tested, and maintain a level of internal consistency.Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, et al did not invent anything or make up anything. They simply discovered what was there. If they didn't someone else would have!
You know who did make up something? Einstein (or he plagiarized it, some say)
Relativity is the patchwork that covered up the holes in Newton, Kepler, and other natural philosopher's theories and "thought experiments."
Something not adding up? Dark Matter. Light bending? Black Holes. Want to really fuck with their heads? Let's create the space time continuum.
Fantasy bullshit made up to distract you from the flaws inherent in our concepts of the Universe. I'm beginning to think Einstein was contracted to create a concept to complex to question, in order to continue the status quo.
It sure beats your aether. That's just fantasy bullshit to explain away the evidence that the earth is round. At least our explanations are mathematically defined and tested, and maintain a level of internal consistency.Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, et al did not invent anything or make up anything. They simply discovered what was there. If they didn't someone else would have!
You know who did make up something? Einstein (or he plagiarized it, some say)
Relativity is the patchwork that covered up the holes in Newton, Kepler, and other natural philosopher's theories and "thought experiments."
Something not adding up? Dark Matter. Light bending? Black Holes. Want to really fuck with their heads? Let's create the space time continuum.
Fantasy bullshit made up to distract you from the flaws inherent in our concepts of the Universe. I'm beginning to think Einstein was contracted to create a concept to complex to question, in order to continue the status quo.
Aether has been disproven since Tesla's time.It sure beats your aether. That's just fantasy bullshit to explain away the evidence that the earth is round. At least our explanations are mathematically defined and tested, and maintain a level of internal consistency.Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, et al did not invent anything or make up anything. They simply discovered what was there. If they didn't someone else would have!
You know who did make up something? Einstein (or he plagiarized it, some say)
Relativity is the patchwork that covered up the holes in Newton, Kepler, and other natural philosopher's theories and "thought experiments."
Something not adding up? Dark Matter. Light bending? Black Holes. Want to really fuck with their heads? Let's create the space time continuum.
Fantasy bullshit made up to distract you from the flaws inherent in our concepts of the Universe. I'm beginning to think Einstein was contracted to create a concept to complex to question, in order to continue the status quo.
You've never once seen me say anything at all about aether.
And if I was to say anything about it, I would mention to you how aether theory had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Tesla was a huge proponent of the Aether, do you think he thought the Earth was flat?
Incredibly flawed logic, to assume that just because I'm on this forum you can fill in my unstated opinions on a subject with that of a select few others. But since you're the expert, please in your own words explain general relativity, and in plain english also explain what you imagine aether to be.Aether has been disproven since Tesla's time.It sure beats your aether. That's just fantasy bullshit to explain away the evidence that the earth is round. At least our explanations are mathematically defined and tested, and maintain a level of internal consistency.Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, et al did not invent anything or make up anything. They simply discovered what was there. If they didn't someone else would have!
You know who did make up something? Einstein (or he plagiarized it, some say)
Relativity is the patchwork that covered up the holes in Newton, Kepler, and other natural philosopher's theories and "thought experiments."
Something not adding up? Dark Matter. Light bending? Black Holes. Want to really fuck with their heads? Let's create the space time continuum.
Fantasy bullshit made up to distract you from the flaws inherent in our concepts of the Universe. I'm beginning to think Einstein was contracted to create a concept to complex to question, in order to continue the status quo.
You've never once seen me say anything at all about aether.
And if I was to say anything about it, I would mention to you how aether theory had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Tesla was a huge proponent of the Aether, do you think he thought the Earth was flat?
Gravity, relativity and quantum mechanics have been proven.
Now, I remember that you avoid mentioning aether or claiming that the earth is flat. But by disavowing relativity, you're saying that there is a better explanation, and on these forums it's always aether.
I have never yet seen anything that indicates the you have the slightest knowledge of the Flat Earth you purport to support.Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, et al did not invent anything or make up anything. They simply discovered what was there. If they didn't someone else would have!
You know who did make up something? Einstein (or he plagiarized it, some say)
Relativity is the patchwork that covered up the holes in Newton, Kepler, and other natural philosopher's theories and "thought experiments."
Something not adding up? Dark Matter. Light bending? Black Holes. Want to really fuck with their heads? Let's create the space time continuum.
Fantasy bullshit made up to distract you from the flaws inherent in our concepts of the Universe. I'm beginning to think Einstein was contracted to create a concept to complex to question, in order to continue the status quo.
Gravitation exists on the Earth. You throw a ball up, it comes back down. Obviously that is a form of gravitation. I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.Sorry to join the party late, but if the FE is accelerating upwards, why haven't we crashed into the sun and Moon yet? They're only a few miles up yes?
You know who did make up something? Einstein (or he plagiarized it, some say)I have never yet seen anything that indicates the you have the slightest knowledge of the Flat Earth you purport to support.
Relativity is the patchwork that covered up the holes in Newton, Kepler, and other natural philosopher's theories and "thought experiments."
Something not adding up? Dark Matter. Light bending? Black Holes. Want to really fuck with their heads? Let's create the space time continuum.
Fantasy bullshit made up to distract you from the flaws inherent in our concepts of the Universe. I'm beginning to think Einstein was contracted to create a concept to complex to question, in order to continue the status quo.
You talk about "Light bending?" On your flat earth model (you do have one?)
- at the time the sun is setting it is still 3,000 miles above the earth (about 20° if you want an angle!), yet we see the sun appearing to set behind the horizon! - BENDY LIGHT?
- An equinox is coming up (Mar 20). On that date the sun will be able to be seen to rise due east (90°) and set due west - everywhere![1] Yet on the accepted (?) flat earth, with the sun circling over the equator the sun would rise even north of NW (at about 36°) - BENDY LIGHT?
You worry about "dark matter", but the Heliocentric Globe does NOT rely on dark matter one little bit! Yes it is hypothesized to explain galaxies "holding together"!
On the other hand the accepted Flat Earth depends on "Dark Energy" to power its Universal Acceleration that provides its "simulated gravity". This hypothesis provides no explanation for measured variations in "g".
While the Globe uses well proven gravitation[2] to provide genuine gravity that varies across the earth as explained by rotation and differing polar and equatorial radii and variation with altitude!
The "the flaws inherent in our concepts of the Universe" are simply flaws in your understanding of it. Don't blame Newton, Einstein or anyone else for your failings - go learn a bit about the Globe and more particularly about what alternatives there are! I do not see ANY that explain observations.Yes, I know you won't consider any of this, but maybe someone else will see the fallacy of the Flat Earth model.
[1] Except right at the poles - they BOTH get 24 hour sunlight on the equinoxes - explain THAT with you Flat Earth sun!
[2] See: "Henry Cavendish proved Newton's Gravitation" http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66174.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66174.0)[/list]
It bothers me to no end to see a bunch of people so god damn sure of themselves when they've only been told these things about our existence, and then they accept it to their core, it's part of their identity now.I've been told that the Grand Canyon exists for as long as I can remember, but I've never seen it. How can I believe that it actually exists as I've never seen it. All pictures of it must be dismissed as fakes and until I see it with my own eyes, it cannot exist. All who say it exists are lying or part of a conspiracy to make me think that it does exist for some reason.
I've been told that the Grand Canyon exists for as long as I can remember, but I've never seen it. How can I believe that it actually exists as I've never seen it. All pictures of it must be dismissed as fakes and until I see it with my own eyes, it cannot exist. All who say it exists are lying or part of a conspiracy to make me think that it does exist for some reason.
Does this sound a little mad to you?
This is simply a false equivalence.
I've been told that the Grand Canyon exists for as long as I can remember, but I've never seen it. How can I believe that it actually exists as I've never seen it. All pictures of it must be dismissed as fakes and until I see it with my own eyes, it cannot exist. All who say it exists are lying or part of a conspiracy to make me think that it does exist for some reason.
Does this sound a little mad to you?
This is simply a false equivalence.
You guys are leaving out the fact that most Americans could possibly, you know, go to the Grand Canyon and see it for themselves.Bad link, but I know what you're getting at. No, astronauts have nothing to do with freemasons. It's a highly selective process in that if you don't have years of training, you'll only get in the way. Fortunately, the astronauts keep us posted on what's going on, so we don't need to feel left out. And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive. Still, you wouldn't want to spend many thousands of dollars only to get a letter that says "just play along."
It seems to be a highly selective process to go to space, if you know what I mean. (http://"<br />https://www.google.com/search?q=astronaut+mason+symbols&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil84Wj_8fLAhVLLSYKHawSCjIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1382&bih=730")
You guys are leaving out the fact that most Americans could possibly, you know, go to the Grand Canyon and see it for themselves.Bad link, but I know what you're getting at. No, astronauts have nothing to do with freemasons. It's a highly selective process in that if you don't have years of training, you'll only get in the way. Fortunately, the astronauts keep us posted on what's going on, so we don't need to feel left out. And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive. Still, you wouldn't want to spend many thousands of dollars only to get a letter that says "just play along."
It seems to be a highly selective process to go to space, if you know what I mean. (http://"<br />https://www.google.com/search?q=astronaut+mason+symbols&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil84Wj_8fLAhVLLSYKHawSCjIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1382&bih=730")
Yes, I am. What makes you so certain that they're linked to freemasonry? Why would they even need to be?You guys are leaving out the fact that most Americans could possibly, you know, go to the Grand Canyon and see it for themselves.Bad link, but I know what you're getting at. No, astronauts have nothing to do with freemasons. It's a highly selective process in that if you don't have years of training, you'll only get in the way. Fortunately, the astronauts keep us posted on what's going on, so we don't need to feel left out. And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive. Still, you wouldn't want to spend many thousands of dollars only to get a letter that says "just play along."
It seems to be a highly selective process to go to space, if you know what I mean. (http://"<br />https://www.google.com/search?q=astronaut+mason+symbols&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil84Wj_8fLAhVLLSYKHawSCjIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1382&bih=730")
The verdict is still out on space tourism. Virgin Galactic looks as though it may never be successful. SpaceX has basically been acquired by NASA, in the form of lucrative contracts... tourism isn't at the top of their list, in the slightest.
Are you debating the fact that many, if not all astronauts have links to freemasonry?
Yes, I am. What makes you so certain that they're linked to freemasonry? Why would they even need to be?You guys are leaving out the fact that most Americans could possibly, you know, go to the Grand Canyon and see it for themselves.Bad link, but I know what you're getting at. No, astronauts have nothing to do with freemasons. It's a highly selective process in that if you don't have years of training, you'll only get in the way. Fortunately, the astronauts keep us posted on what's going on, so we don't need to feel left out. And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive. Still, you wouldn't want to spend many thousands of dollars only to get a letter that says "just play along."
It seems to be a highly selective process to go to space, if you know what I mean. (http://"<br />https://www.google.com/search?q=astronaut+mason+symbols&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil84Wj_8fLAhVLLSYKHawSCjIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1382&bih=730")
The verdict is still out on space tourism. Virgin Galactic looks as though it may never be successful. SpaceX has basically been acquired by NASA, in the form of lucrative contracts... tourism isn't at the top of their list, in the slightest.
Are you debating the fact that many, if not all astronauts have links to freemasonry?
Also, what about Blue Origin? They'll be doing suborbital tourism, and they just tested their New Shepard vertical-landing rocket.
Look, if they were in such a secret organization, do you really think they would risk using secret rituals and rings and handshakes and the like?Yes, I am. What makes you so certain that they're linked to freemasonry? Why would they even need to be?You guys are leaving out the fact that most Americans could possibly, you know, go to the Grand Canyon and see it for themselves.Bad link, but I know what you're getting at. No, astronauts have nothing to do with freemasons. It's a highly selective process in that if you don't have years of training, you'll only get in the way. Fortunately, the astronauts keep us posted on what's going on, so we don't need to feel left out. And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive. Still, you wouldn't want to spend many thousands of dollars only to get a letter that says "just play along."
It seems to be a highly selective process to go to space, if you know what I mean. (http://"<br />https://www.google.com/search?q=astronaut+mason+symbols&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil84Wj_8fLAhVLLSYKHawSCjIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1382&bih=730")
The verdict is still out on space tourism. Virgin Galactic looks as though it may never be successful. SpaceX has basically been acquired by NASA, in the form of lucrative contracts... tourism isn't at the top of their list, in the slightest.
Are you debating the fact that many, if not all astronauts have links to freemasonry?
Also, what about Blue Origin? They'll be doing suborbital tourism, and they just tested their New Shepard vertical-landing rocket.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/ (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/)
A short list of free masons that have been in space, as provided by an actual lodge's website.
I could give you more links, and videos showing the rituals and hand shakes and rings and hand signals, but you would probably immediately disregard because of their "conspiratorial" overtones.
You can keep your eyes closed all you want man the proof is there in black and white. Its not a secret society, because the fact it's not secret. Look at the back of a dollar bill. It's a hide in plain sight type of thing.
And don't forget, I wholesale question the validity of the appolo missions, so the first "astronauts" really didn't need many skills to speak of to be recorded jumping around a movie set.
Popular among conspiracy theorists is the claim that the Eye of Providence shown atop an unfinished pyramid on theGreat Seal of the United States indicates the influence of Freemasonry in the founding of the United States. However, common Masonic use of the Eye dates to 14 years after the creation of the Great Seal. Furthermore, among the members of the various design committees for the Great Seal, only Benjamin Franklin was a Mason (and his ideas for the seal were not adopted). Indeed, many Masonic organizations have explicitly denied any connection to the creation of the Seal.
Sigh... Do your research or don't. Your choice man. I'm not here to educate or indoctrinate.Remaining ignorant of your incorrectness will not make you correct.
The purpose of symbols in general are to imprint ideas and concepts into your head without your knowledge of it happening. A lot of symbols and rites date to prehistory, and in particular, those involving sun worship began to be obvious in Egyptian mythology.
Believe what you will, but ignorance doesn't make you exempt of the influence.
Sigh... Do your research or don't. Your choice man. I'm not here to educate or indoctrinate.YOU of all people tell us to research ourselves? When was the last time you even research of my explanations?
Believe what you will, but ignorance doesn't make you exempt of the influence.Same goes for you.
But I'm not wrong.
Evidence is there. And trust me I do th research on a lot of the stuff you guys throw at me and if I still have unresolved questions you'll know it.
But the conversation was between mean bluemoon to which it appears he has disrespectfully declined to continue.
The shit was getting too real for him.
And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive.Oh, how convenient. The thing that makes your equivalency false will eventually not be a problem... but it'll still be horrendously inaccessible.
I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it? It'll be like a cooler, more expensive form of skydiving, yet it won't be wingsuit jumping, which is also a cooler and (I would imagine) more expensive form of skydiving.And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive.Oh, how convenient. The thing that makes your equivalency false will eventually not be a problem... but it'll still be horrendously inaccessible.
How very convenient, indeed...
Shall we wait until space tourism actually becomes a thing (which is totally, definitely happening) before you try to compare space to the Grand Canyon?
I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?
I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?
I doubt that will convince anybody. Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."
It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave.
Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.
And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.
I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?
I doubt that will convince anybody. Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."
It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave. Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.
And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.
I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?
I doubt that will convince anybody. Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."
It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave. Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.
And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.
People go to Antarctica with their own boats. I ran into a couple in South America that went. The reason they went is because they ran into another couple who went and told them how beautiful it was.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sailing+antarctica&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF_p7u-8rLAhVH22MKHVD7D1MQ_AUIBygC
http://www.bwsailing.com/bw/cruising-news/antarctica-on-our-own/
Here is a guide created by the US government:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub200/Pub200bk.pdf
I have a boat that I am preparing to go to either North up the west coast or south to Central and South America and on to Antarctica. I am not rich, but do ok and can afford the trip. The main reason I can accomplish this is I want to. It seems to me some FE somewhere would want to make the trip. If it is within my means and ability it is within many people's.
However, this is not the case. Consider for a moment that you are riding in a bus. While it is moving at a constant speed, you get up and move to the other side. Why don't you get thrown to the back? The reason is that you retain momentum, and you can only feel acceleration.
Flat-earthers often say that it's unbelievable that we would be moving through space so fast. They say that the earth seems solid and stationary, and we would be able to feel if it was whizzing through space or spinning at 1000 mph.
However, this is not the case. Consider for a moment that you are riding in a bus. While it is moving at a constant speed, you get up and move to the other side. Why don't you get thrown to the back? The reason is that you retain momentum, and you can only feel acceleration.
Now, about that "1000 mph" statistic. The equation for centripetal/centrifugal acceleration is a=v2/r. The radius r is 6371 km, or 6371000 m. THe velocity v is about 1000 mph, or 460 m/s. So our function is 4602/6371000 which gives us...
.033 m/s2
For comparison, acceleration due to gravity at the poles is 9.83 m/s2. You certainly wouldn't be flung off by that, but it has been measured.
So why does the atmosphere stay with the earth's surface? Well, it too has initial momentum. This confines it to earth's reference frame.
This initial momentum also explains the Coriolis effect. Since the surface is spinning faster at the equator, and slower toward the poles, air that moves away from the equator is deflected to the east relative to the surface. So, if you have an area of low pres***sure, air is drawn toward it, but air from the equator is deflected east, and air from the poles is deflected west. That causes hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere. The deflection is measurable and consistent, and weather forecasters have to take it into account in their simulations. It is also visible in the bands and storms of Jupiter.
So what do you, the Flat Earth Society, have to say about that? Can you find a better explanation that accounts for the weaker gravity at the equator and the Coriolis effect? Good luck.
I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?
I doubt that will convince anybody. Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."
It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave. Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.
And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.
People go to Antarctica with their own boats. I ran into a couple in South America that went. The reason they went is because they ran into another couple who went and told them how beautiful it was.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sailing+antarctica&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF_p7u-8rLAhVH22MKHVD7D1MQ_AUIBygC
http://www.bwsailing.com/bw/cruising-news/antarctica-on-our-own/
Here is a guide created by the US government:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub200/Pub200bk.pdf
I have a boat that I am preparing to go to either North up the west coast or south to Central and South America and on to Antarctica. I am not rich, but do ok and can afford the trip. The main reason I can accomplish this is I want to. It seems to me some FE somewhere would want to make the trip. If it is within my means and ability it is within many people's.
I hear it's lovely this time of year in Antarctica. /s
I wouldn't waste your time, the main reason I'm sure most people don't go there is because it sucks. Brutal weather, crazy seas, no discernible signs of life. I would go towards Alaska, which despite having similar latitude and sun exposure to regions of Antarctica, is not just a frozen tundra for miles and miles and miles.
Imagine you jump off that bus, while it is moving....What happens to your organs?
Or, is space itself just conveniently moving at the same speed of the Earth, so the 'astronauts' whom have 'already done this' managed to survive, as you were, by 'hitting the ground running'?
Regardless, if the world is spinning and hurtling through space, there should be some sort of 'transition' when exiting the 'vehicle' as you must realize your analogy inevitably must conclude; Yes - you wouldn't know how fast you were going - until it was too late.
Why in videos of the astronauts inside the ISS are they constantly moving around, catching themselves and grabbing stabilization bars? If they aren't experiencing any acceleration then why would that happen?They need something to absorb their momentum, once they accelerate to move somewhere, they must decelerate to stop somewhere.
This happens when theyre seemingly standing still, not just demos of them moving around the station.Because they aren't standing still, you probably mention how they slowly rotates.
Why in videos of the astronauts inside the ISS are they constantly moving around, catching themselves and grabbing stabilization bars? If they aren't experiencing any acceleration then why would that happen?When in the microgravity of the space station, any motion that they make causes them to move or rotate. There is no ground for them to plant their feet on. They also have air currents to contend with.
I don't understand; why should anything happen to your organs?
Or, is space itself just conveniently moving at the same speed of the Earth, so the 'astronauts' whom have 'already done this' managed to survive, as you were, by 'hitting the ground running'?
No, it isn't that 'space is moving', but instead that space is empty (OK, it's mostly empty). When an astronaut leaves the vehicle in space, it isn't like jumping from a moving bus onto stationary earth or into air moving at a different speed (if moving at all). He's going from a vehicle moving through vacuum, to moving through that vacuum without a vehicle.
Regardless, if the world is spinning and hurtling through space, there should be some sort of 'transition' when exiting the 'vehicle' as you must realize your analogy inevitably must conclude; Yes - you wouldn't know how fast you were going - until [you stopped].
You've missed the original poster's point, which is: ON EARTH you cannot detect the velocity of the spot you are standing on, because you detect acceleration, not speed [...] All this subsequent talk of orbiting and leaving spacecraft is all tangential.
According to flat earth theory I am travelling faster than the speed of light.
(Flat Earth wiki)
Why doesn't gravity pull the earth into a spherical shape?
The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity.
(Flat Earth wiki)
After a single year the Earth would have been moving faster than the speed of light.
Breaking the laws of physics aside, my question is :) why don't you feel the effects of moving so fast?
So you disagree with the Flat Earth wiki?
That seemed pretty clear that the Earth was constantly accelerating, which is the reason why I will hit the floor after stepping off a chair.
However, if the Earth was constantly accelerating like this after just a year it would be moving faster than the speed of light. My question is why don't I feel like I'm moving a few thousand times the speed of light when I'm simply sitting in the chair?
So you disagree with the Flat Earth wiki?
That seemed pretty clear that the Earth was constantly accelerating, which is the reason why I will hit the floor after stepping off a chair.
However, if the Earth was constantly accelerating like this after just a year it would be moving faster than the speed of light. My question is why don't I feel like I'm moving a few thousand times the speed of light when I'm simply sitting in the chair?
I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
That's just silly. It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".
Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
That's just silly. It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".
Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
That's just silly. It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".
Because you can constantly accelerate without reaching the speed of light. It is impossible to reach the speed of light. I thought you had already grasped this.
Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
That's just silly. It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".
Because you can constantly accelerate without reaching the speed of light. It is impossible to reach the speed of light. I thought you had already grasped this.
The part you haven't grasped is that if we were moving so fast to experience length contraction (and therefore never reach the speed of light) our mass would have increased close to infinity. That's all part of special relativity.
Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
That's just silly. It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".
Because you can constantly accelerate without reaching the speed of light. It is impossible to reach the speed of light. I thought you had already grasped this.
The part you haven't grasped is that if we were moving so fast to experience length contraction (and therefore never reach the speed of light) our mass would have increased close to infinity. That's all part of special relativity.
Why do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
You're right about accelerating without reaching the speed of light. In that one regard, and from my limited knowledge of relativity, it checks out.Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
That's just silly. It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".
Because you can constantly accelerate without reaching the speed of light. It is impossible to reach the speed of light. I thought you had already grasped this.
The part you haven't grasped is that if we were moving so fast to experience length contraction (and therefore never reach the speed of light) our mass would have increased close to infinity. That's all part of special relativity.
Why do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
QuoteWhy do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.
If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.
Sounds crazy, I know.
QuoteWhy do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.
If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.
Sounds crazy, I know.
I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it. Sounds crazy, I know ::), but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it. It is an extremely simple concept.
QuoteWhy do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.
If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.
Sounds crazy, I know.
I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it. Sounds crazy, I know ::), but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it. It is an extremely simple concept.
QuoteWhy do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.
If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.
Sounds crazy, I know.
I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it. Sounds crazy, I know ::), but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it. It is an extremely simple concept.
Accelerating at 1g for 100 years will get you to 0.9998192668726723 c. In my book that is close to infinite
So you don't understand special relativity, that's ok and honestly it's what I expected.
QuoteWhy do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.
If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.
Sounds crazy, I know.
I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it. Sounds crazy, I know ::), but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it. It is an extremely simple concept.
Accelerating at 1g for 100 years will get you to 0.9998192668726723 c. In my book that is close to infinite
No, it's close to c (which is not infinity). And it's not a valid argument regarding the mass of the objects traveling at that speed because numbers don't work that way. Whatever mass an object would be at that speed, it could be five times as much, it could be a thousand times as much. And that goes for any speed. The phrase "close to infinite" has no intrinsic meaning; it is an absurdity.So you don't understand special relativity, that's ok and honestly it's what I expected.
Oh, the irony!
I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it....It is an extremely simple concept.
I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
(Our mass would have to be nearing infinity if we were travelling at the speed that we were experiencing length contraction.)
I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.
So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?
(Our mass would have to be nearing infinity if we were travelling at the speed that we were experiencing length contraction.)
That isn't how that works. You know it depends on what you mean by "mass," right? Inertial mass increases, which requires more energy to continue acceleration. You are over simplifying the relationship between mass and energy in this instance. I would suggest checking out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
I know I'm a bit late telling you (btw did your value come from "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator"), but the 100 years you quote is for the time elapsed in the inertial FOR, on the accelerating earth the time elapsed is only about 8.986 years! (Time dilation and all that stuff).QuoteWhy do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.
If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.
Sounds crazy, I know.
I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it. Sounds crazy, I know ::), but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it. It is an extremely simple concept.
Accelerating at 1g for 100 years will get you to 0.9998192668726723 c. In my book that is close to infinite
I know I'm a bit late telling you (btw did your value come from "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator"), but the 100 years you quote is for the time elapsed in the inertial FOR, on the accelerating earth the time elapsed is only about 8.986 years! (Time dilation and all that stuff).QuoteWhy do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all? At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?
Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.
If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.
Sounds crazy, I know.
I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it. Sounds crazy, I know ::), but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it. It is an extremely simple concept.
Accelerating at 1g for 100 years will get you to 0.9998192668726723 c. In my book that is close to infinite
Just try to find the Earth's velocity and time elapsed in the inertial FOR for say 6020 years earth time!
If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.
If you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.
Just so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.Again, this is a meaningless statement.
You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.
In other words you cannot show how it is irrelevant to UA, so you need to move on.If you had the capacity to pay attention, you would see that was already done. It is you that needs to move on since you either don't understand it, or refuse to try. If you have a question, I can help you out, but you would rather make nonsensical claims than have an actual discussion.
Math is the straw that breaks the back of FE in all cases.This is objectively false.
You cannot just cherry pick what you think fits and declare the rest of math irrelevant and the issue settled.That isn't happening. SR explains the topic at hand quite nicely. I think it is you who doesn't understand the maths.
UA, perspective, spotlight sun, not spotlight sun, none of stand up to the math. And when the issue of math is FORCED into the thread subject, you either cherry pick the .000001% that fits or ignore it altogether.Also objectively false.
If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.QuoteIf you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.QuoteJust so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.Again, this is a meaningless statement.
If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.QuoteIf you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.QuoteJust so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.Again, this is a meaningless statement.
So again you can't actually say where I'm wrong, I'm sensing a pattern here where you just repeatedly dodge the question.
Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't make it meaningless. Well maybe meaningless to you because you don't understand it.
I can try and help you understand it if you'd like. It is a pretty simple statement already but if you tell me which part you're struggling with I can explain it to you.
If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.QuoteIf you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.QuoteJust so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.Again, this is a meaningless statement.
So again you can't actually say where I'm wrong, I'm sensing a pattern here where you just repeatedly dodge the question.
Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't make it meaningless. Well maybe meaningless to you because you don't understand it.
I can try and help you understand it if you'd like. It is a pretty simple statement already but if you tell me which part you're struggling with I can explain it to you.
I've explained it to you. I don't know how much you know about SR, so I'm not sure where you want me to start helping you. It seems you'd rather just continue to make baseless claims, presumably because it makes you feel superior. It is clear you have little grasp on the topic, so instead of trying to discuss, you deflect and act like nothing is being said. It's bordering on being intellectually dishonest. Feel free to come back when you want to have an actual discussion.
If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.QuoteIf you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.QuoteJust so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.Again, this is a meaningless statement.
So again you can't actually say where I'm wrong, I'm sensing a pattern here where you just repeatedly dodge the question.
Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't make it meaningless. Well maybe meaningless to you because you don't understand it.
I can try and help you understand it if you'd like. It is a pretty simple statement already but if you tell me which part you're struggling with I can explain it to you.
I've explained it to you. I don't know how much you know about SR, so I'm not sure where you want me to start helping you. It seems you'd rather just continue to make baseless claims, presumably because it makes you feel superior. It is clear you have little grasp on the topic, so instead of trying to discuss, you deflect and act like nothing is being said. It's bordering on being intellectually dishonest. Feel free to come back when you want to have an actual discussion.
And once again you just dodge the question, surprise surprise.
Okay then, I guess if I try to explain it in little baby steps for you, you might stand a chance.
Do you understand why flat earthers think the Earth can continuously accelerate but never reach the speed of light?
If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.QuoteIf you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.QuoteJust so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.Again, this is a meaningless statement.
So again you can't actually say where I'm wrong, I'm sensing a pattern here where you just repeatedly dodge the question.
Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't make it meaningless. Well maybe meaningless to you because you don't understand it.
I can try and help you understand it if you'd like. It is a pretty simple statement already but if you tell me which part you're struggling with I can explain it to you.
I've explained it to you. I don't know how much you know about SR, so I'm not sure where you want me to start helping you. It seems you'd rather just continue to make baseless claims, presumably because it makes you feel superior. It is clear you have little grasp on the topic, so instead of trying to discuss, you deflect and act like nothing is being said. It's bordering on being intellectually dishonest. Feel free to come back when you want to have an actual discussion.
And once again you just dodge the question, surprise surprise.
Okay then, I guess if I try to explain it in little baby steps for you, you might stand a chance.
Do you understand why flat earthers think the Earth can continuously accelerate but never reach the speed of light?
I can tell you are having a hard time, but please stop with your baseless claims. You didn't even ask me a question.
Explain what to me? I just pointed out your misunderstanding of how mass applies to SR in this particular case. But, please, feel free to continue being condescending to mask the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.
I know why the flat earth can accelerate continuously and never reach the speed of light. I can't speak for others, nor will I attempt to.
Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.
You're claiming you know why the flat earth can accelerate continuously and never reach the speed of light.
Do you understand that the flat earth is travelling at over 99.9% of the speed of light?
No one is interested in an actual discussion. They just want to come here to try to force anyone with an opinion different then theirs to recant and bow to their infallible wisdom. There's obviously some kind of personal validation at stake and some kind of rigorous need to defend their position by attacking yours.
There's a lot of "thinking about what you're going to say next" while the other person is talking going on, and not a lot of active listening or understanding. I've withdrawn myself from this style of debate as it's pretty obvious who is dug into their position at all cost, usually just a glance at the username is enough to tell.
Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.
Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.
Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.
lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.
In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.
In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.
lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.
In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.
In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.
lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.
In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.
In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
Again, that is not how it works. Inertial mass in acceleration within the context of SR refers to the energy required to keep accelerating an object, not that you literally gain mass. You are not applying E=mc2 properly. I would suggest you read the resource I provided as well as reading this:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91974/increase-in-mass-with-velocity
and this:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-relativistic-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches
You will see that there is not an absolute answer to the question at hand and you are grossly oversimplifying the situation.
Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.Yes, a discussion among people who research and study physics. I've provided you several resources thus far. You've added absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than repeating the same thing that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.
"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc
That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.
"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed
the inertial mass
inertial mass
Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.Yes, a discussion among people who research and study physics. I've provided you several resources thus far. You've added absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than repeating the same thing that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.Quote"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc
That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.
Alright, I've given up on assuming you have any understanding of the concept. It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Let's focus on the quote you posted first:Quote"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed
Looking more closely:Quotethe inertial mass
As specific as it gets:Quoteinertial mass
The link you posted literally says the same thing. I have to assume you are just trolling at this point. No one is this dense.
Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.Yes, a discussion among people who research and study physics. I've provided you several resources thus far. You've added absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than repeating the same thing that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.Quote"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc (http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc)
That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.
Alright, I've given up on assuming you have any understanding of the concept. It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Let's focus on the quote you posted first:Quote"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed
Looking more closely:Quotethe inertial mass
As specific as it gets:Quoteinertial mass
The link you posted literally says the same thing. I have to assume you are just trolling at this point. No one is this dense.
Interesting that you think the statement has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, the one written by the Max Planck Institute for gravitational physics.
But I shouldn't distract you, you seem to be a one thought at a time kinda person.
So simply my question is:
Does the intertial mass of a body increase as it's speed increases?
In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.
In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
As far as I'm concerned, this thread concluded with nametaken graciously accepting Rounder's explanation of relative motion in space (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4764.msg92661#msg92661). But to clear up the argument that cropped up afterwards...In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.
In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
If you want to talk about velocity, length contraction, and relativistic mass, you need to establish the frame of reference of the observer.
Let's call the observer Bob. Bob can survive in space. Bob is moving at .99 c relative to earth. Bob is pretty darn bored, because he doesn't get Netflix in space, but I digress...
According to Bob, the earth is indeed experiencing length contraction. The earth also has a ridiculously high relativistic mass.
According to the good citizens of earth, Bob is the one experiencing length contraction. Bob is the one with ridiculously high relativistic mass.
According to the good citizens of earth, the earth is not experiencing length contraction, and its total mass is just its normal everyday rest mass.
In conclusion, no one is implying that anyone is holding a black hole in their hand.
BCGreenwood: I don't mind people being wrong. I myself am wrong all the time. Heck, there is a chance I'm wrong about this. But being smug and insulting is a one-way ticket to no-respect land.
junker: You are generally correct about this topic as far as I can tell. But at least try to explain to the poor guy why he is being wrong, instead of being smug and dismissive about everything he says... its no wonder this thread was going nowhere.
You've missed one important detail about the whole thing though, the twins paradox.
Yes Bob and Earth appear to each other to be moving very fast but only 1 of them is and that's the point I'm making.
Any observer would have to be travelling close to the speed of light for Earth to appear "normal".
You said 3 or 4 times that I didn't mention that it was to an outside observer. To be honest, I thought it was kinda obvious.
Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.
You're claiming you know why the flat earth can accelerate continuously and never reach the speed of light.
Do you understand that the flat earth is travelling at over 99.9% of the speed of light?
How do you know that the flat earth is traveling 99.9% of the speed of light.
How do you know how long the flat earth has been traveling?
How do you know the speed of light?
How does being a condescending prick work out for you in the real world bud?
There's some questions for you, try not to dodge them.
How do you know that the flat earth is traveling 99.9% of the speed of light.
How do you know how long the flat earth has been traveling?
How do you know the speed of light?
How does being a condescending prick work out for you in the real world bud?
There's some questions for you, try not to dodge them.
Point 1. Math. If one is accelerating at 1g in order to maintain 1g you are mathematically required to gain speed. But other things are going during the acceleration. Too much so to go into detail here which has been proved by both sides; FE and RE alike.
How do you know that the flat earth is traveling 99.9% of the speed of light.
How do you know how long the flat earth has been traveling?
How do you know the speed of light?
How does being a condescending prick work out for you in the real world bud?
There's some questions for you, try not to dodge them.
Point 1. Math. If one is accelerating at 1g in order to maintain 1g you are mathematically required to gain speed. But other things are going during the acceleration. Too much so to go into detail here which has been proved by both sides; FE and RE alike.
The whole point of the last few comments of this thread has been that claiming that "the earth is traveling at ____ speed" is completely pointless. You could declare the earth to be moving at absolutely any speed less than c, and be completely correct, depending on what you define as your frame of reference. (See Rounder's post. He gets it.)
Your other points stand.
Unless I've missed something, I really think all this discussion of relativistic effects is moot for the simple reason that if UA really is Universal, it means that all matter is subject to it, and there basically is no "outside" from which to observe, nor for us "inside" to make observations of. Length contraction, increase in mass, all of it: those things only matter if there are two different frames of reference. With nothing outside the accelerating frame of reference, we on the inside cannot say one way or the other if those effects are happening. Going back to Einstein's thought experiments, his 'man in an elevator' subject could have been travelling at 99.9999c and subject to immense length and mass changes, but he himself would not know that unless he could observe something outside his own frame of reference and compare himself to it.
| I had not noticed your little 'man in an elevator' bit earlier. One thing that seems to kill UA is that the 'elevator' is minute compared to the earth. Einstein's Equivalence Principle is only valid for a region of space with a uniform acceleration due to gravitation. This is clearly not satisfied over the whole earth. Even on the "Flat Earth" we know that apparent "g" varies quite significantly with latitude, altitude and the proximity to massive bodies (particularly high density ores). On the Globe even the direction of "g" changes - it is always directed (almost) to the centre of the earth. The reference http://Einstein Online, Equivalence Principle (http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle) looks at these cases where these "tidal forces" become significant. The "massive elevator" on the right illustrates this (though with the Globe). Objects in the elevator are subjected to gravitational forces in different directions and so we cannot apply Einstein's EP to the whole elevator. | Spacer | (http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/equivalence_principleI/tidal_elevator.gif) |
Celestial Gravitation
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.