The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Dual1ty on May 04, 2023, 02:27:07 PM
-
FE is slowly but surely leaving the old theories behind. Don't take it personally. ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slD1OBjo7Nc
-
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.
-
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.
That's interesting that it went over your head. May I ask what your beliefs are regarding Earth and gravity?
-
UA is my favorite proof of Flat Earth. There are different kinds of experiments which suggest that the surface of the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. It is considered to be an absurd phenomenon which inspired the modification of the nature of space and time at the beginning of the 20th century to account for the effects under a Round Earth. The geometry of space of such a nature that the earth is physically accelerating up to objects at a physical level, but there is an unseen nature of the universe called "space-time" or "curved space" which creates this illusion.
See the information in these links:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.
Firstly, it doesn't need to be a disk accelerating through a Cartesian universe. The traditional expanding universe model postulates that the universe can expand and accelerate away from itself and create new space without mass destruction. It could also be something akin to a universe accelerating through a larger meta-universe and we feel the inertial effects.
Per speed of light limits, it's not a limit in Special Relativity and things can continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light as a function of the laws through dilation effects. But Special Relativity was created to explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment) which suggests that the Earth is horizontally motionless. So while continuous acceleration isn't a problem in SR, I have some doubts about those laws myself.
Much of the major theoretical science in Astronomy is really about why the FE seems to be true but is "really" not. It is continuously fascinating. The "but but how about this" just doesn't compare to the bulk of this evidence.
-
UA is my favorite proof of Flat Earth. There are different kinds of experiments which suggest that the surface of the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. It is considered to be an absurd phenomenon which inspired the modification of the nature of space and time at the beginning of the 20th century to account for the effects under a Round Earth. The geometry of space of such a nature that the earth is physically accelerating up to objects at a physical level, but there is an unseen nature of the universe called "space-time" or "curved space" which creates this illusion.
See the information in these links:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.
Firstly, it doesn't need to be a disk accelerating through a Cartesian universe. The traditional expanding universe model postulates that the universe can expand and accelerate away from itself and create new space without mass destruction. It could also be something akin to a universe accelerating through a larger meta-universe and we feel the inertial effects.
Per speed of light limits, it's not a limit in Special Relativity and things can continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light as a function of the laws through dilation effects. But Special Relativity was created to explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment) which suggests that the Earth is horizontally motionless. So while continuous acceleration isn't a problem in SR, I have some doubts about those laws myself.
All of the major theoretical science in Astronomy is really about why the FE seems to be true but is "really" not. It is continuously fascinating. The "but but how about this" just doesn't compare to the bulk of this evidence.
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.
The globe-earthers have an explanation, which is the "warping of spacetime". But really, if you look into it, "spacetime" is a bastardization of the Ether. That was the whole agenda behind pushing relativity and particle physics into the mainstream - to make the Ether a myth just like Atlantis.
-
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.
That's interesting that it went over your head. May I ask what your beliefs are regarding Earth and gravity?
No, wait, I missed the brief advert for the book; presumably the video is meant to be that length. I still don't understand the point of this in an FE Theory forum: if you mean us to read Mr Wheeler's book and then discuss it with you, why not say so? Always assuming it's relevant to FE Theory, that is.
-
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.
What you are asking is unreasonable. Demanding to know about the workings and origins to the energies of the universe is basically asking a spiritual question.
The laboratory experiments speak for themselves for what is happening and anything else is speculation.
-
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.
What you are asking is unreasonable. Demanding to know about the workings and origins to the energies of the universe is basically asking a spiritual question.
The laboratory experiments speak for themselves for what is happening and anything else is speculation.
You can keep believing in Rocketship Earth if that's what you want. My video is not made for close-minded people, it's meant for people who are interested in the experiments that prove the Ether and how the Ether functions.
-
See the information in these links:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.
My main objection to UA is that the Equivalence Principle, that you like to tout as evidence, explicitly says that it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
-
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.
What you are asking is unreasonable. Demanding to know about the workings and origins to the energies of the universe is basically asking a spiritual question.
But one of your objections to gravity is that "despite great effort, the mechanism for gravity has not been discovered". But you think it unreasonable to ask what powers UA?
On your Wiki page on the evidence for EA you say that gravitational mass and inertial mass being equivalent has been called "one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries that exists in fundamental physics". What is your source for that quote? I couldn't see a reference on the Wiki page and when I Googled the phrase the only reference I could find was the Wiki page.
Personally I'm not sure why this is an issue anyway. I mean, F = ma tells us that a greater "m" requires a greater "F" to make it accelerate at the same rate as a smaller "m". But the formula for gravity tells us that the "F" due to gravity is proportional to the "m", so those two things cancel out and all objects accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field. You could ask "why" that is, but isn't that similar to the question you objected to above? It just seems to be the way the universe works. I think General Relativity makes some sense of this but that's a bit above my scientific pay grade.
-
You can keep believing in Rocketship Earth if that's what you want. My video is not made for close-minded people, it's meant for people who are interested in the experiments that prove the Ether and how the Ether functions.
So out of interest why do you think things fall?
I'm not a FE believer, but UA does at least do a pretty decent job of explaining that. It's imperfect, it doesn't explain the weight variation by latitude. But it's the best FE explanation I've seen. I've seen silly explanations about how objects are more dense than the air below them but that makes no sense - objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up? UA at least provides an explanation for that.
-
So out of interest why do you think things fall?
Gravity.
I'm not a FE believer, but UA does at least do a pretty decent job of explaining that. It's imperfect, it doesn't explain the weight variation by latitude. But it's the best FE explanation I've seen. I've seen silly explanations about how objects are more dense than the air below them but that makes no sense - objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up? UA at least provides an explanation for that.
No, the best explanation is the one I'm offering: Etheric Acceleration. And I'm not a FE believer either, I'm a FE realist and researcher.
-
So out of interest why do you think things fall?
Gravity.
Hmm. OK, but the mainstream view of gravity is that the force of gravity acts in the direction of the centre of mass.
That's why things fall "down" from any point on a sphere, because we define down with respect to how we are facing.
How would that work on a FE where the centre of mass would surely be somewhere below the centre.
No, the best explanation is the one I'm offering: Etheric Acceleration.
I don't even know what that means. The video in the OP offered no clear explanation
-
So out of interest why do you think things fall?
Gravity.
Hmm. OK, but the mainstream view of gravity is that the force of gravity acts in the direction of the centre of mass.
That's why things fall "down" from any point on a sphere, because we define down with respect to how we are facing.
How would that work on a FE where the centre of mass would surely be somewhere below the centre.
No, the best explanation is the one I'm offering: Etheric Acceleration.
I don't even know what that means. The video in the OP offered no clear explanation
No, the mainstream view of gravity is that it isn't a force and that everything is freefalling along a curved path. So you can apply this curved path to the center of FE as well. g variance shows this to be true.
The video points to a book that you can download for free and you can figure things out yourself by reading it. All the pictures in the video are from that book.
-
See the information in these links:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.
My main objection to UA is that the Equivalence Principle, that you like to tout as evidence, explicitly says that it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
It's more like "there is not a difference between an environment with an upwardly accelerating floor and an illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."
The "gravity" you are referring to is the curved space illusion gravity, not the traditional Newtonian gravity where bodies fall downwards. The version of gravity where bodies fall downwards was long disproven.
But one of your objections to gravity is that "despite great effort, the mechanism for gravity has not been discovered". But you think it unreasonable to ask what powers UA?
That is a statement of fact. Some people do think that all things about gravity have been discovered. They are incorrect.
Maybe it is also unreasonable to expect to know the mechanism and energy source of gravity. This is just another point against the notion that the UA energy source should be known.
On your Wiki page on the evidence for EA you say that gravitational mass and inertial mass being equivalent has been called "one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries that exists in fundamental physics". What is your source for that quote? I couldn't see a reference on the Wiki page and when I Googled the phrase the only reference I could find was the Wiki page.
Did you try clicking on the [1] link after that quote?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
(https://i.imgur.com/a9Wxlfc.png)
Personally I'm not sure why this is an issue anyway. I mean, F = ma tells us that a greater "m" requires a greater "F" to make it accelerate at the same rate as a smaller "m". But the formula for gravity tells us that the "F" due to gravity is proportional to the "m", so those two things cancel out and all objects accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field. You could ask "why" that is, but isn't that similar to the question you objected to above? It just seems to be the way the universe works. I think General Relativity makes some sense of this but that's a bit above my scientific pay grade.
I guess it could be possible that the universe is filled with phenomena where Flat Earth Theory appears to be correct, but numerous illusions really make the earth round. At some point you will have to look in the mirror, however.
-
...an illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."
That depends on your frame of reference. If your FoR is the same as the earth, then a dropped object appears to be accelerating downwards towards the floor. So again, there is no way to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
-
...an illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."
That depends on your frame of reference. If your FoR is the same as the earth, then a dropped object appears to be accelerating downwards towards the floor. So again, there is no way to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
There are ways to tell. Light blueshifts or redshifts whether the light is moving towards or away from you.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/d/d3/Doppler_effect.jpg)
In the Pound-Rebka and Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments a light source is placed at the top and the bottom of the tower and researchers measured whether it was redshifted or blueshifted at the other end. If it acts like the environment of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship where the ceiling is accelerating away from the incoming light that is shining upwards it will behave one way and not another.
https://time-theory.info/pound-rebka-experiment/
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/5/5c/Pound-rebka-diag.png/563px-Pound-rebka-diag.png)
In the right hand version we can see when the light shines upwards from the light source to the ceiling it redshifts.
This quote in this book even clarifies it:
https://books.google.com/books?id=W4DN9dDlxBgC&lpg=PA29&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false
“ One can also see the role of the equivalence principle by considering a pulse of light emitted over a distance h along the axis of a spaceship in uniform acceleration g in outer space. The time taken for the light to reach the detector is t = h (we use units G = c = 1). The difference in velocity of the detector acquired during the light travel time is v = gt = gh, the Doppler shift z in the detected light. This experiment, carried out in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship whose rockets produce an acceleration g, must yield the same result for the energy shift of the photon in a uniform gravitational field f according to the equivalence principle. The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments can therefore be regarded as an experimental proof of the equivalence principle. ”
See bolded.
Curved space gravity is mimicking the effect of being inside of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship. That is what is meant by the equivalence principle.
According to the equivalence principle whatever physical effect takes place in an upwardly accelerating environment is indistinguishable from "gravity". This is what it is.
-
“ One can also see the role of the equivalence principle by considering a pulse of light emitted over a distance h along the axis of a spaceship in uniform acceleration g in outer space. The time taken for the light to reach the detector is t = h (we use units G = c = 1). The difference in velocity of the detector acquired during the light travel time is v = gt = gh, the Doppler shift z in the detected light. This experiment, carried out in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship whose rockets produce an acceleration g, must yield the same result for the energy shift of the photon in a uniform gravitational field f according to the equivalence principle. The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments can therefore be regarded as an experimental proof of the equivalence principle. ”
See bolded.
Curved space gravity is mimicking the effect of being inside of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship. That is what is meant by the equivalence principle.
According to the equivalence principle whatever physical effect takes place in an upwardly accelerating environment is indistinguishable from "gravity". This is what it is.
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level. So, how is it that you can tell the difference? What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?
-
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level. So, how is it that you can tell the difference? What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?
Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity. See the above example of the Pund-Rebka experiment. In the version in an upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling would be accelerating upwards and therefore creating more space between it and the photon. In Newtonian gravity the ceiling is not accelerating upwards.
-
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level. So, how is it that you can tell the difference? What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?
Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity.
This isn't going to be another pedantic gravity vs gravitation gotcha, is it? You know full well that the terms gravity and gravitation are used interchangeably, even by physicists discussing GR. Even the article that you cited uses the term gravity even though it's obviously referring to gravitation.
So, just to make you happy, how does one tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation when the EP specifically says that you can't?
-
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level. So, how is it that you can tell the difference? What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?
Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity.
This isn't going to be another pedantic gravity vs gravitation gotcha, is it? You know full well that the terms gravity and gravitation are used interchangeably, even by physicists discussing GR. Even the article that you cited uses the term gravity even though it's obviously referring to gravitation.
So, just to make you happy, how does one tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation when the EP specifically says that you can't?
It's not an argument of the difference between gravity and gravitation. In the scenario with the upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling within the rocket is accelerating upwards and moving through space. This does not happen in the static version on earth. There is a physical difference.
The version of gravity where bodies fall down is not physically equivalent to a scenario where the room accelerates up. There are experiments and indications that this classic version of gravity is incorrect. Gravity must simulate the physics of a scenario where the room accelerates upwards because there are different kinds of experiments showing this physical reality.
Curved space is used to simulate the upwardly accelerating rocket scenario. See this section titled "Why Is Spacetime Curved?" (https://books.google.com/books?id=3QBgCgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PT97#v=onepage&q&f=false) of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by Princeton University prof John Richard Gott III:
A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”
One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of-reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)
Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!
Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.
Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea.
You can also see this section from Gravity: A Very Short Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false) by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton:
Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.
Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.
With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).
So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!
Also, this quote on p.65 of Relativity Visualized by Lewis Carroll Epstein:
Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up!
-
It's not an argument of the difference between gravity and gravitation. In the scenario with the upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling within the rocket is accelerating upwards and moving through space. This does not happen in the static version on earth. There is a physical difference.
I'm not sure if you are understanding the question posed by the EP. If you are in a rocket and don't know anything about where you're, then how can you tell if you're in space accelerating at 1g or if you are being influenced by a 1g gravitational field (curvature of space-time) when the results of any experiment would be the same either way?
-
Considering that curved space is used to create an illusion to explain the physical reality of the other scenario it is really more of an absurd philosophical question.
It would be like asking "How do you know whether the woman you love wasn't abducted and replaced last month by a human clone of her body and her mind and all of her defects by an advanced alien species to the point that there is nothing you could do to tell the difference?"
-
Yes, I think that you're finally getting it. The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet. Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.
-
Yes, I think that you're finally getting it. The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet. Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.
Actually the EP precedes the notion of a "curved space-time on a round earth" by a lot. Even when Einstein started thinking about it there was no notion of a "curved space-time on a round earth".
Translation of "curved space-time on a round earth" from the insane cult of the mathematical globe Earth to real physics: Ether dilation on a flat Earth.
Have a good Sun-worshipping-day!
-
Yes, I think that you're finally getting it. The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet. Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.
Sure, I can tell the difference between a reality which has direct physical evidence for it and someone screaming that the physical evidence is an illusion derived from processes in an unseen dimension. One of the explanations has direct physical evidence and the other does not.
Recall from the above Princeton University Prof quote from John Richard Gott III that curved space was needed because an upwardly accelerating surface didn't make sense on a round earth -
"Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved."
When the justification rests on it being the only way to make sense of it in your model, the mere fact that you need to do this is a proof against the model.
-
Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball? From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.
-
If you are watching the ball drop from an external viewpoint then it's a second-hand view. If you strap a Go Pro on the ball before you drop it then the view from the Go Pro is more of a first-hand view. In the first-hand view the earth is accelerating upwards.
Likewise, if you get up on a chair and walk off the edge and observe the surface of the earth carefully, you will find that from a first hand view the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.
If you take a water balloon and drop it you will find that it changes shape in freefall to its weightless form.
http://gravityprobe.org/GravityProbe%20Links/Galileo-Undone-Mar-10-2020.pdf
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f5/Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png/1125px-Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png)
Consider:
If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms within the balloon "down", how could the water atoms within the balloon experience weightlessness and travel just as easily upwards or downwards within the container of the balloon without resistance from "gravity"?
In a Zero-G airplane flight that uses free-fall to create weightlessness within the plane it has been seen that someone with long hair can have their hair freely flow up and down without resistance, as if the hair was in a weightless environment.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/71/44/47/15092200/4/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms "down", how could the atoms in the hair flow freely up and down without resistance in free-fall? Surely if she were to mold her hair into a certain shape it should not flow up and down freely without resistance if there were a phenomenon pulling all atoms downwards.
In a situation where you are losing a game tug-of-war with an elephant and are being pulled along, any time you pull against the rope it creates resistance against the direction you are being pulled in. If the atoms in the hair are all being pulled down towards the earth they should not be allowed to float freely up and down without resistance. Yet water, hair, and various types of materials act weightless in a zero-g freefall flight.
All of this and more is easy evidence that the true physical nature of gravity is that of an upwardly accelerating earth.
-
If you are watching the ball drop from an external viewpoint then it's a second-hand view. If you strap a Go Pro on the ball before you drop it then the view from the Go Pro is more of a first-hand view. In the first-hand view the earth is accelerating upwards.
Likewise, if you get up on a chair and walk off the edge and observe the surface of the earth carefully, you will find that from a first hand view the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.
If you take a water balloon and drop it you will find that it changes shape in freefall to its weightless form.
http://gravityprobe.org/GravityProbe%20Links/Galileo-Undone-Mar-10-2020.pdf
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f5/Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png/1125px-Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png)
Consider:
If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms within the balloon "down", how could the water atoms within the balloon experience weightlessness and travel just as easily upwards or downwards within the container of the balloon without resistance from "gravity"?
In a Zero-G airplane flight that uses free-fall to create weightlessness within the plane it has been seen that someone with long hair can have their hair freely flow up and down without resistance, as if the hair was in a weightless environment.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/71/44/47/15092200/4/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms "down", how could the atoms in the hair flow freely up and down without resistance in free-fall? Surely if she were to mold her hair into a certain shape it should not flow up and down freely without resistance if there were a phenomenon pulling all atoms downwards.
In a situation where you are losing a game tug-of-war with an elephant and are being pulled along, any time you pull against the rope it creates resistance against the direction you are being pulled in. If the atoms in the hair are all being pulled down towards the earth they should not be allowed to float freely up and down without resistance. Yet water, hair, and various types of materials act weightless in a zero-g freefall flight.
All of this and more is easy evidence that the true physical nature of gravity is that of an upwardly accelerating earth.
Wow, I have to reply because the dishonesty you're displaying is unbelievable. Who's talking about "pulling phenomena"? You know as well as I do that the mainstream left that behind 100 years ago and now says that gravity isn't a force. So why are you being so dishonest?
-
Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:
Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball? From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.
-
Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:
Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball? From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.
I also said to put aside the mechanism. I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence. Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense. However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.
-
Did you try clicking on the [1] link after that quote?
Ah. My bad, as you lot say. I did try that but it just took me further down the Wiki page. I didn't notice that it was referencing a paper.
But literally the paragraph after the bit you quoted the paper goes on to say:
Lacking any deeper understanding of this question, most physicists prefer to accept equivalence as the fundamental way in which the universe operates. Other physicists maintain that the origin of the principle of equivalence is one of the deepest, unsolved mystery of modern physics, and deserves an explanation
My emphasis. Which is what I was saying. These dudes are saying this is a big mystery, but they also say that most physicists don't really agree with them and just take the view that it's just how the universe works.
I guess it could be possible that the universe is filled with phenomena where Flat Earth Theory appears to be correct, but numerous illusions really make the earth round. At some point you will have to look in the mirror, however.
You'll be unsurprised to hear I see this the exact other way around. The earth has been observed to be spherical. You claim it's flat but then hypothesise mechanisms for why observations better fit a spherical earth.
UA is your replacement for gravity, for example, but the model of gravity doesn't just explain why things fall, it explains the shape of the earth and the shape of all the other heavenly bodies we observe to be spheres. It also explains the orbit of the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth.
You hypothesise mechanisms for why the sun sets and why it appears a consistent angular size. RE doesn't need mechanisms for those things, it's how you'd expect things to be on a spherical rotating earth with a distant sun.
I've mentioned numerous times the way the sun would have to move in your monopole model. The diameter of the circle the sun makes has to constantly change and the speed has to change with it to maintain a consistent day/night cycle. And every 6 months it has to flip between the diameter increasing and decreasing. I'd suggest the RE model is significantly simpler and explains all this far more elegantly.
-
Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:
Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball? From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.
I also said to put aside the mechanism. I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence. Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense. However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.
I think you mean to argue by Occam's Razor or something. Even limited to solely that with no further investigation, there should be at least as much evidence that you are being pushed upwards than there is that the ball is pulled downwards. While you drop the ball you feel a pressure of the Earth pushing against your feet.
The ball falling towards the earth may be the simplest explanation based on what you were told as a child, and sure, I'll give you that one. That falling phenomenon is so dear that most people refuse to believe that modern gravity is anything but that. There is never any coherent argument here in favor of the earth pushing us upwards through curved space as the cause of gravity, despite that this is the current model.
This notion is so absurd that no one here ever tries arguing it directly. The best we get are absurdist arguments like "You can't tell for certain that the evidence is not REALLY an illusion from an unseen DIMENSION"... which is basically what the "Equivalence Principle" is: an attempt to put an absurd argument about illusions and processes in unseen dimensions on the same level of direct physical evidence.
-
Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:
Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball? From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.
I also said to put aside the mechanism. I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence. Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense. However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.
I think you mean to argue by Occam's Razor or something. Even limited to solely that with no further investigation, there should be at least as much evidence that you are being pushed upwards than there is that the ball is pulled downwards. While you drop the ball you feel a pressure of the Earth pushing against your feet.
The ball falling towards the earth may be the simplest explanation based on what you were told as a child, and sure, I'll give you that one. That falling phenomenon is so dear that most people refuse to believe that modern gravity is anything but that. There is never any coherent argument here in favor of the earth pushing us upwards through curved space as the cause of gravity, despite that this is the current model.
This notion is so absurd that no one here ever tries arguing it directly. The best we get are absurdist arguments like "You can't tell for certain that the evidence is not REALLY an illusion from an unseen DIMENSION"... which is basically what the "Equivalence Principle" is: an attempt to put an absurd argument about illusions and processes in unseen dimensions on the same level of direct physical evidence.
No, the current model is not that the Earth is pushing you upwards - the current model is that the Earth is preventing you from falling through it and this results in the illusion that it's pushing you upwards. Even mainstream people get that wrong or don't explain it correctly.
The irony is that the official model is a lot closer to the truth than your Rocketship Earth model where the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and the planets are all accelerating upwards together for unknown reasons. All you have to do is replace Globe Earth & "Spacetime" with Flat Earth & Ether, and congrats - you went from the fantasy land of mathematical models to reality and real physics.
-
No, the current model is not that the Earth is pushing you upwards - the current model is that the Earth is preventing you from falling through it and this results in the illusion that it's pushing you upwards. Even mainstream people get that wrong or don't explain it correctly.
So if different mainstream sources are getting it wrong, how do you know which is the correct explanation?
In Gravity: A Short Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false) by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time:
In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.
It's not too hard to find the same description elsewhere, such as in this MIT class:
https://lenhoang.wordpress.com/2015/11/
Step by step, I got the students to almost figure out by themselves the most brilliant thoughts of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. The climax was when I repeatedly asked them: “If gravity is not a force — which is what Einstein claimed — why do apples fall?” It took them a while. They proposed different ideas. Mostly wrong. But that’s okay. Einstein himself got mostly wrong ideas. But, slowly, they got warmer. And warmer. Until, all of sudden, one student said half convincingly: “the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!
-
Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time
Right. And he also references the moon landing as having happened. And says:
"The equator is an example of a great circle on the globe"
He also says that "Einstein's idea explained Galileo's result that all objects fall at the same rate", so that contradicts the notion that this is some great mystery for physics.
“the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!
The bit you bolded is, in the original article, a link to one of his YouTube videos. In the video he talks about astronauts in the ISS orbiting the earth.
At the end of that video he talks about how the earth is round and the upwards acceleration doesn't mean the earth is expanding. He then links to another of his videos where he explains that. To be honest I'm not sure I understood the other video but it's something to do with it accelerating through spacetime and not space. I think.
Anyway, the point is neither of these articles are advocating a Flat Earth.
-
No, the current model is not that the Earth is pushing you upwards - the current model is that the Earth is preventing you from falling through it and this results in the illusion that it's pushing you upwards. Even mainstream people get that wrong or don't explain it correctly.
So if different mainstream sources are getting it wrong, how do you know which is the correct explanation?
In Gravity: A Short Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false) by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time:
In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.
It's not too hard to find the same description elsewhere, such as in this MIT class:
https://lenhoang.wordpress.com/2015/11/
Step by step, I got the students to almost figure out by themselves the most brilliant thoughts of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. The climax was when I repeatedly asked them: “If gravity is not a force — which is what Einstein claimed — why do apples fall?” It took them a while. They proposed different ideas. Mostly wrong. But that’s okay. Einstein himself got mostly wrong ideas. But, slowly, they got warmer. And warmer. Until, all of sudden, one student said half convincingly: “the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!
A ball Earth pushing upwards in all directions means an expanding non-expanding ball, which is self-evidently nonsensical. An oxymoron. I don't care if some of these retards invoke Spacetime, The Mathemagical Medium to explain that. REAL physics uses space and time as measures, because that's what they are. They're NOT a physical medium.
One of those quotes says "the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory.". It's not "knocking you off", it's stopping you from continuing to freefall. However you will experience that as a push because you already have your freefalling momentum. To say that it's "knocking you off" or that the "the ground is accelerating upwards" is ridiculous.
-
Eric finally made a video regarding what I call Rocketship Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OB037jvlAU
Of course, he doesn't care about the physics or the cause of gravity, he only cares about singing Kumbaya. But he's right about the assumptions that rocketship-earthers have to make, isn't he?
Although he's missing the most blatant one which I already mentioned, which is that they have to assume that the Earth is constantly being pushed by an unknown force.
-
Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time
Right. And he also references the moon landing as having happened. And says:
"The equator is an example of a great circle on the globe"
He also says that "Einstein's idea explained Galileo's result that all objects fall at the same rate", so that contradicts the notion that this is some great mystery for physics.
“the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!
The bit you bolded is, in the original article, a link to one of his YouTube videos. In the video he talks about astronauts in the ISS orbiting the earth.
At the end of that video he talks about how the earth is round and the upwards acceleration doesn't mean the earth is expanding. He then links to another of his videos where he explains that. To be honest I'm not sure I understood the other video but it's something to do with it accelerating through spacetime and not space. I think.
Anyway, the point is neither of these articles are advocating a Flat Earth.
It seems that you have wasted your time with a poor effort at deflection. I did not claim that they were advocating a Flat Earth. It was posted to show what the RE belief on gravity is.
A ball Earth pushing upwards in all directions means an expanding non-expanding ball, which is self-evidently nonsensical. An oxymoron. I don't care if some of these retards invoke Spacetime, The Mathemagical Medium to explain that. REAL physics uses space and time as measures, because that's what they are. They're NOT a physical medium.
One of those quotes says "the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory.". It's not "knocking you off", it's stopping you from continuing to freefall. However you will experience that as a push because you already have your freefalling momentum. To say that it's "knocking you off" or that the "the ground is accelerating upwards" is ridiculous.
Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.
Of course, he doesn't care about the physics or the cause of gravity, he only cares about singing Kumbaya. But he's right about the assumptions that rocketship-earthers have to make, isn't he?
Eric Dubey's density theory for gravity doesn't explain the laboratory equivalence principle experiments at all.
How would density make things weightless while in freefall?
Why would bodies of different masses and different inertial resistances to movement fall at the same rate?
Why would light behave as if the ceiling of a room was accelerating upwards with the doppler effect?
There are physical experiments which tell us that the physical earth is accelerating upwards. One must accept it or imagine a scenario to simulate it. He does not attempt to answer these questions and denies physical reality. Asking why the stars don't hit the earth is a question of deflection which does not erase the experimental evidence, and does not attempt answer the query. This is why the density gravity theory is currently poor.
-
A ball Earth pushing upwards in all directions means an expanding non-expanding ball, which is self-evidently nonsensical. An oxymoron. I don't care if some of these retards invoke Spacetime, The Mathemagical Medium to explain that. REAL physics uses space and time as measures, because that's what they are. They're NOT a physical medium.
One of those quotes says "the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory.". It's not "knocking you off", it's stopping you from continuing to freefall. However you will experience that as a push because you already have your freefalling momentum. To say that it's "knocking you off" or that the "the ground is accelerating upwards" is ridiculous.
Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.
Yeah, right... Plenty of people in the mainstream don't say that. It's not like everyone in the mainstream agrees with that, you know? But I don't think the powers that be care about those disagreements as long as people aren't figuring out the truth.
Of course, he doesn't care about the physics or the cause of gravity, he only cares about singing Kumbaya. But he's right about the assumptions that rocketship-earthers have to make, isn't he?
Eric Dubey's density theory for gravity doesn't explain the laboratory equivalence principle experiments at all.
How would density make things weightless while in freefall?
Why would bodies of different masses and different inertial resistances to movement fall at the same rate?
Why would light behave as if the ceiling of a room was accelerating upwards with the doppler effect?
There are physical experiments which tell us that the physical earth is accelerating upwards. One must accept it or imagine a scenario to simulate it. He does not attempt to answer these questions and denies physical reality. Asking why the stars don't hit the earth is a question of deflection which does not erase the experimental evidence, and does not attempt answer the query. This is why the density gravity theory is currently poor.
That's not what I'm talking about. Those questions are besides the point and they are for Eric or people who are advocates for so-called RDD, not me. But he doesn't care, he's a yoga instructor and a "FE/Veganism guru".
But then again, you don't care about the Ether either, which is why you have to talk about RDD instead?
-
Yeah, right... Plenty of people in the mainstream don't say that. It's not like everyone in the mainstream agrees with that, you know? But I don't think the powers that be care about those disagreements as long as people aren't figuring out the truth.
Plenty of people in the mainstream do say it though. To believed in modern gravity you have to believe that something meta-physical is happening.
This author of the type of mass media book you can find in a library repeats it:
https://qr.ae/pyhDGQ
(https://i.imgur.com/vPG10X3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/k748HxL.png)
This popular science video by Vertasium with over 10 million views explains at the 9:57 mark how you can be accelerating upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equations:
https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=597 (https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=597)
@9:57
"But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?
No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...
(equation)
...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still."
It also appears in this book about how math relates to the universe:
One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers
By Andrew Hodges
https://books.google.com/books?id=UCuwrtBax7AC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false
"Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature."
Andrew Hodges is a mathematician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Hodges
(https://i.imgur.com/Dg4OAa3.png)
A physics student, Berry, once made us a brief paper about what he learned in physics class, showing the math on how the surface of the earth in the globe model of gravity is actually accelerating upwards.
https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards-pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/Lkbt5yd.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/SMXheL4.png)
That's not what I'm talking about. Those questions are besides the point and they are for Eric or people who are advocates for so-called RDD, not me. But he doesn't care, he's a yoga instructor and a "FE/Veganism guru".
But then again, you don't care about the Ether either, which is why you have to talk about RDD instead?
I watched the video and Dubey only questions things like why the stars don't hit the earth, while you appear to be questioning the power source for what is pushing up the earth. If someone is an avid experimentalist like Max Plank and believes that all we really know is what has been subjected to experimentation then those concerns are immaterial to the demonstrated facts.
Max Plank is known for remarking that "Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination."
Experimentation is all we really know of the workings of the world, and this form of empirical inquiry is what marked the Scientific Revolution and the Scientific Method. Lesser forms of knowledge are often deemed to be pseudoscience. Experimentation shows the empirical truth of nature. The physical gravity experiments as verified by multiple laboratories have demonstrated in multiple ways that the earth is accelerating upwards. Everything else, and all other explanations, must follow behind this physical reality.
In the case of the Round Earth gravity, it must follow behind the empirical reality of experimentation, hence the need for illusions and processes in unseen dimensions to cause the physical earth to accelerate upwards.
-
Yeah, right... Plenty of people in the mainstream don't say that. It's not like everyone in the mainstream agrees with that, you know? But I don't think the powers that be care about those disagreements as long as people aren't figuring out the truth.
Plenty of people in the mainstream do say it though. To believed in modern gravity you have to believe that something meta-physical is happening.
This author of the type of mass media book you can find in a library repeats it:
https://qr.ae/pyhDGQ
(https://i.imgur.com/vPG10X3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/k748HxL.png)
This popular science video by Vertasium with over 10 million views explains at the 9:57 mark how you can be accelerating upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equations:
https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=597 (https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=597)
@9:57
"But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?
No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...
(equation)
...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still."
It also appears in this book about how math relates to the universe:
One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers
By Andrew Hodges
https://books.google.com/books?id=UCuwrtBax7AC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false
"Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature."
Andrew Hodges is a mathematician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Hodges
(https://i.imgur.com/Dg4OAa3.png)
A physics student, Berry, once made us a brief paper about what he learned in physics class, showing the math on how the surface of the earth in the globe model of gravity is actually accelerating upwards.
https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards-pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/Lkbt5yd.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/SMXheL4.png)
That's not what I'm talking about. Those questions are besides the point and they are for Eric or people who are advocates for so-called RDD, not me. But he doesn't care, he's a yoga instructor and a "FE/Veganism guru".
But then again, you don't care about the Ether either, which is why you have to talk about RDD instead?
I watched the video and Dubey only questions things like why the stars don't hit the earth, while you appear to be questioning the power source for what is pushing up the earth. If someone is an avid experimentalist like Max Plank and believes that all we really know is what has been subjected to experimentation then those concerns are immaterial to the demonstrated facts.
Max Plank is known for remarking that "Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination."
Experimentation is all we really know of the workings of the world, and this form of empirical inquiry is what marked the Scientific Revolution and the Scientific Method. Lesser forms of knowledge are often deemed to be pseudoscience. Experimentation shows the empirical truth of nature. The physical gravity experiments as verified by multiple laboratories have demonstrated in multiple ways that the earth is accelerating upwards. Everything else, and all other explanations, must follow behind this physical reality.
In the case of the Round Earth gravity, it must follow behind the empirical reality of experimentation, hence the need for illusions and processes in unseen dimensions to cause the physical earth to accelerate upwards.
I already told you I don't care about that. Saying that the Earth is accelerating upwards as a ball is even more insane than saying the Earth is accelerating upwards as a flat plane. It's definitely not physics, so there's no point in bringing that up in a physics discussion.
I used to believe in Rocketship Earth too until I got my head out my ass. Rocketship Earth requires a dome and there is no dome other than the one resulting from the gravitational field (and your perspective).
Unfortunately for you, experimentation shows that the Ether is real and that you're talking nonsense. But will you ever acknowledge that? Probably not.
-
I don't know what the ether gravity theory is, but it would need to answer for the Equivalence Principle experiments like everything else. Any gravity theory where things are physically pushed or pulled downwards towards the earth does not work. Things would not be weightless in free fall.
Say you have a large heavy magnet and a tiny screw. If you hold the screw at some point near the magnet the screw flies out of your hand towards the magnet. While the screw is flying towards the magnet is it weightless as it is 'falling' towards the magnet?
No. If you were to momentarily pull it back in the opposite direction at the half way point you would feel resistance as the atoms of the screw attempts to accelerate towards the magnet. The magnetic atoms of the screw are not weightless in-flight. If there were metallic flexible hairs dangling from the screw it could not experience weightlessness float weightlessly 'up' and 'down' in relation to the screw's descent without resistance. If the screw was a magnetic metallic container containing a magnetic metallic liquid, and if the atoms were being pulled towards the magnet equally, then the liquid would not become weightless globs which can easily float in any direction while the container was accelerating towards the magnet.
A theory where something is pulling does not work. The only physical gravity theory which works is a scenario where the earth is accelerating upwards. Otherwise you would need something meta-physical with illusions in unseen dimensions to create the upward accelerating earth effect like the Round Earth explanation.
-
I don't know what the ether gravity theory is, but it would need to answer for the Equivalence Principle experiments like everything else. Any gravity theory where things are physically pushed or pulled downwards towards the earth does not work. Things would not be weightless in free fall.
Say you have a large heavy magnet and a tiny screw. If you hold the screw at some point near the magnet the screw flies out of your hand towards the magnet. While the screw is flying towards the magnet is it weightless as it is 'falling' towards the magnet?
No. If you were to momentarily pull it back in the opposite direction at the half way point you would feel resistance as the atoms of the screw attempts to accelerate towards the magnet. The magnetic atoms of the screw are not weightless in-flight. If there were metallic flexible hairs dangling from the screw it could not experience weightlessness float weightlessly 'up' and 'down' in relation to the screw's descent without resistance. If the screw was a magnetic metallic container containing a magnetic metallic liquid, and if the atoms were being pulled towards the magnet equally, then the liquid would not become weightless globs which can easily float in any direction while the container was accelerating towards the magnet.
A theory where something is pulling does not work. The only physical gravity theory which works is a scenario where the earth is accelerating upwards. Otherwise you would need something meta-physical with illusions in unseen dimensions to create the upward accelerating earth effect like the Round Earth explanation.
First off, there's no such thing as a "magnetic atom". From reading that and the rest of what you wrote, it's apparent to me that you gravely misunderstand how magnetism works.
When the screw is "flying" towards the magnet it is in fact weightless, UNTIL you put some resistance on it or it settles on the magnet. What you're describing as "pulling in the opposite direction" is in fact applying resistance.
"A theory where something is pulling does not work.". That's you attacking a strawman theory that exists only in your imagination. In fact Ether distortion/dilation implies that everything is falling towards the center of the distortion/dilation with no force applied. Therefore, no "pulling" involved.
Furthermore, you keep hammering the point of the "upward accelerating ball" while ignoring yet again that an expanding non-expanding ball is nothing more than an oxymoron, and it is in fact not physics. The real ball Earth physics explanation is what I explained previously - that everything is freefalling weightlessly along a curved path UNTIL a resistance is applied such as that of the solid ground. Unfortunately for you and all the "upward accelerating ball" lunatics, the upward acceleration is an illusion and it doesn't happen in reality.
Oddly enough you claim that Rocketship Earth is powered by an unknown force that can only be explained spiritually, but accepting and understanding the reality of the Ether is a big problem for you (even though denying that the Ether exists is insane because a child could prove that it exists if given some tools and some directions).
-
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each half of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.
And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you still have the same problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.
It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet. By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.
-
Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.
That may be true, but "accelerating upwards through curved space" (you mean spacetime) is NOT the same as a flat earth accelerating upwards through space.
In fact, both sources you cite explain that this does NOT mean that the earth is expanding.
So this may be true, but it's irrelevant and nothing to do with your hypothesis of UA
-
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each side of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.
And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you have the opposite problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.
It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet. By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.
What's the point in you using century-old misconceptions to mansplain how magnetism works?
"Magnetic atom", "magnetic attraction", "pulling phenomena". None of those things are real.
I suggest you study how magnetism actually works instead of invoking the old ghosts of outdated science. In real magnetism, there is no force involved. Same with gravity.
Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.
That may be true, but "accelerating upwards through curved space" (you mean spacetime) is NOT the same as a flat earth accelerating upwards through space.
In fact, both sources you cite explain that this does NOT mean that the earth is expanding.
So this may be true, but it's irrelevant and nothing to do with your hypothesis of UA
It is basically the same thing (minus the vertical vector), which is why Tom here insists on that point.
Universal Acceleration is such a misnomer for Rocketship Earth. You're right about that at least.
-
It is basically the same thing (minus the vertical vector)
???
But...the vertical vector IS what UA claims. I'd suggest that's a pretty fundamental difference.
-
It is basically the same thing (minus the vertical vector)
???
But...the vertical vector IS what UA claims. I'd suggest that's a pretty fundamental difference.
Yeah, I agree. But Tom doesn't seem to think so. ::)
-
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each side of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.
And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you have the opposite problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.
It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet. By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.
The depths of your misunderstanding of very basic Newtonian physics is so profound that I think it's probably best if you work on that before you dip your toes in the wonderful world of relativity, as you have in some of your other posts here.
The sensation, or state, of weightlessness occurs when there is no force acting between the component parts of a body. For a human, we 'feel' weightless when there is no tension or compression in our body - witness the floating hair of the girl in your vomit comet photo. This can either be because there is no force acting on us at all - a pretty much impossible situation - or because all of the particles that we are made of are accelerating at the same rate due to some external force. If we accelerate due to some external influence, like going up in a lift, we feel the acceleration because the lift only applies a force to our feet. Our feet have to accelerate our ankles, our ankles push up through our legs, hips, etc - there is compression in our bodies due to this transmitted force. But if we fall due to gravity, we feel weightless because all of the particles in our bodies experience a force proportionate to their mass, meaning there is no tension or compression.
You can see this in your balloon diagram. (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f5/Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png/1125px-Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png)
At rest, a balloon filled with water will sag down, as the elastic material stretches to counter the weight of the contents. In freefall, the water and the balloon are all being acted on by gravity in proportion to their respective masses, so the tension in the balloon returns it to a natural sphere.
There's nothing in any of this that contradicts the equivalence principle, or that falsifies our typical, newtonian understanding of gravity.
A common misconception regarding spaceflight is that the weightlessness experienced in orbit is due to there not being any gravity. This is completely wrong - there is only a small reduction in g in low earth orbit. The reason astronauts feel and appear weightless is because they are perpetually 'falling' (ie accelerating) towards the centre of the earth, but are travelling so fast horizontally that they trace a perfect circle - the orbit - around the earth. If you could travel fast enough and overcome the drag from the atmosphere - I believe the figure is around 17,600mph - you would experience weightlessness at the earth's surface. If you were flying an aircraft at 17,6000mph you would need to 'push' to 0g just to maintain the same altitude. Oddly enough, if aircraft were equipped with extremely accurate g-meters, in straight and level flight the accelerometer wouldn't actually say 1g, it would actually be very slightly less than this, reducing further as speed increases.
As an aside, accelerometers are something of a confusion - the standard is to read 1g at rest on the earth's surface, and therefore 0g in freefall. This is very confusing, as of course freefall is acceleration, but there is some logic to it.
-
The screw wouldn't be weightless. Imagine that it's a metal toothpick instead of a screw, that is being attracted towards to a large flat magnet. If the toothpick is 'falling' horizontally in relation to the surface of the magnet then each side of the toothpick is attracted with equal intensity towards the magnet. If the toothpick were weightless then it would be able wander around into different positions as it falls, and could even rotate into a diagonal or vertical position.
And if for some reason you think that the vertical position is most ideal for a metal body that is attracted a magnet, perhaps with the magnetic properties more concentrated when falling as a spear, then you have the opposite problem and the metal body is still not actually weightless and able to rotate into any position.
It is obvious that falling metallic bodies wouldn't experience weightlessness when attracted towards a magnet. By extension, weightlessness would not occur with any pulling phenomenon.
The depths of your misunderstanding of very basic Newtonian physics is so profound that I think it's probably best if you work on that before you dip your toes in the wonderful world of relativity, as you have in some of your other posts here.
The sensation, or state, of weightlessness occurs when there is no force acting between the component parts of a body. For a human, we 'feel' weightless when there is no tension or compression in our body - witness the floating hair of the girl in your vomit comet photo. This can either be because there is no force acting on us at all - a pretty much impossible situation - or because all of the particles that we are made of are accelerating at the same rate due to some external force. If we accelerate due to some external influence, like going up in a lift, we feel the acceleration because the lift only applies a force to our feet. Our feet have to accelerate our ankles, our ankles push up through our legs, hips, etc - there is compression in our bodies due to this transmitted force. But if we fall due to gravity, we feel weightless because all of the particles in our bodies experience a force proportionate to their mass, meaning there is no tension or compression.
You can see this in your balloon diagram. (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f5/Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png/1125px-Water_Balloon_Equivalence_Principle.png)
At rest, a balloon filled with water will sag down, as the elastic material stretches to counter the weight of the contents. In freefall, the water and the balloon are all being acted on by gravity in proportion to their respective masses, so the tension in the balloon returns it to a natural sphere.
There's nothing in any of this that contradicts the equivalence principle, or that falsifies our typical, newtonian understanding of gravity.
A common misconception regarding spaceflight is that the weightlessness experienced in orbit is due to there not being any gravity. This is completely wrong - there is only a small reduction in g in low earth orbit. The reason astronauts feel and appear weightless is because they are perpetually 'falling' (ie accelerating) towards the centre of the earth, but are travelling so fast horizontally that they trace a perfect circle - the orbit - around the earth. If you could travel fast enough and overcome the drag from the atmosphere - I believe the figure is around 17,600mph - you would experience weightlessness at the earth's surface. If you were flying an aircraft at 17,6000mph you would need to 'push' to 0g just to maintain the same altitude. Oddly enough, if aircraft were equipped with extremely accurate g-meters, in straight and level flight the accelerometer wouldn't actually say 1g, it would actually be very slightly less than this, reducing further as speed increases.
As an aside, accelerometers are something of a confusion - the standard is to read 1g at rest on the earth's surface, and therefore 0g in freefall. This is very confusing, as of course freefall is acceleration, but there is some logic to it.
"there is some logic to it". That logic is explained with relativity in the globe Earth / Heliocentric model.
"the wonderful world of relativity". What about anything you're saying has anything to do with relativity? You're going back to Newton lol. So apparently, like Tom, you want to take a time machine and go back to 17th / 18th / 19th / early 20th century physics. ;D
100 YEAR OLD NEWSFLASH FOR EVERYONE
Did you know that even Einstein himself couldn't justify the absence of the Ether in his theory of relativity (read "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" by Einstein, 1920)? But his version of the Ether is one where "it's just there to help explain things" (my words, not his) and it doesn't do anything, because his mathematical model where he replaces the true Ether medium with his "spacetime" nonsense already does everything... mathematically. Meanwhile, in that same lecture he tells you that "The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field.". EM field = Ether.
-
"the wonderful world of relativity". What about anything you're saying has anything to do with relativity? You're going back to Newton lol. So apparently, like Tom, you want to take a time machine and go back to 17th / 18th / 19th / early 20th century physics. ;D
Well, not much - I am going back to Newton, as it were, because TB appears to not really understand the basics. If you can't understand the basics, there's little point in proceeding.
-
"the wonderful world of relativity". What about anything you're saying has anything to do with relativity? You're going back to Newton lol. So apparently, like Tom, you want to take a time machine and go back to 17th / 18th / 19th / early 20th century physics. ;D
Well, not much - I am going back to Newton, as it were, because TB appears to not really understand the basics. If you can't understand the basics, there's little point in proceeding.
I really wish you would address my "100 year old newsflash" instead... What do you think about that? Did you know about that lecture?
-
I really wish you would address my "100 year old newsflash" instead... What do you think about that? Did you know about that lecture?
That wasn't really the point I was making - as we seemed to be struggling to understand springs and freefall, but yes, I'm aware of that lecture. Not really my area of knowledge, to be honest, so I don't really have a view on it. As with some of the earlier responses to your OP, I'm unclear as to how you get from assertions about the ether to the earth being flat. I'm also unclear as to what, precisely , about conventional understandings of the earth's shape and relationship to the sun, moon and other planets you find to be contradictory or ridiculous.
-
I really wish you would address my "100 year old newsflash" instead... What do you think about that? Did you know about that lecture?
That wasn't really the point I was making - as we seemed to be struggling to understand springs and freefall, but yes, I'm aware of that lecture. Not really my area of knowledge, to be honest, so I don't really have a view on it. As with some of the earlier responses to your OP, I'm unclear as to how you get from assertions about the ether to the earth being flat. I'm also unclear as to what, precisely , about conventional understandings of the earth's shape and relationship to the sun, moon and other planets you find to be contradictory or ridiculous.
If you really want to understand the connection between the Ether and FE, this video explains that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJPCGkJs0y8
-
If you really want to understand the connection between the Ether and FE, this video explains that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJPCGkJs0y8
So two main issues with that video:
1. It doesn't touch on FE at all. It is all about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. Even if you do subscribe to a geocentric view, that isn't FE. I'm therefore none the wiser on what you are thinking.
2. The entire video is based on a disingenuous interpretation of Einstein's quote, and his thinking. The video asserts that Einstein has no proof that the earth is travelling around the sun. This is simply not true - his quote very specifically mentions optical methods, meaning techniques akin to the M-M experiment. Einstein, and other physicists, would be well aware of the abundance of observations that astronomers had made over the years to arrive at the conclusion of heliocentricity. Examples include:
- Venus having phases
- Retrograde motion of Mars
- Venus and Mercury solar transits (ie passing in front of the sun), when other planets do not do this
- stellar parallax
- stellar velocity aberration
Most of these were observed and well understood well before Einstein came along. Summed together, every single observation we can make of our solar system strongly supports the heliocentric model. It is from that position that Einstein and other scientists tried to make sense of the M-M experiment. Had they concluded that, in fact, the geocentric model was correct, they would have had many, many more questions to answer, because it simply does not make sense based on what we can observe.
-
If you really want to understand the connection between the Ether and FE, this video explains that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJPCGkJs0y8
So two main issues with that video:
1. It doesn't touch on FE at all. It is all about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. Even if you do subscribe to a geocentric view, that isn't FE. I'm therefore none the wiser on what you are thinking.
2. The entire video is based on a disingenuous interpretation of Einstein's quote, and his thinking. The video asserts that Einstein has no proof that the earth is travelling around the sun. This is simply not true - his quote very specifically mentions optical methods, meaning techniques akin to the M-M experiment. Einstein, and other physicists, would be well aware of the abundance of observations that astronomers had made over the years to arrive at the conclusion of heliocentricity. Examples include:
- Venus having phases
- Retrograde motion of Mars
- Venus and Mercury solar transits (ie passing in front of the sun), when other planets do not do this
- stellar parallax
- stellar velocity aberration
Most of these were observed and well understood well before Einstein came along. Summed together, every single observation we can make of our solar system strongly supports the heliocentric model. It is from that position that Einstein and other scientists tried to make sense of the M-M experiment. Had they concluded that, in fact, the geocentric model was correct, they would have had many, many more questions to answer, because it simply does not make sense based on what we can observe.
1. Is that supposed to be an argument when I'm posting in the Flat Earth Theory section of TFES Forum? OK Ptolemy. Earth is not a ball, but that is kind of besides the point of this particular thread.
2. Yeah, OK. One of three scenarios: You watched only a small portion of the video; You watched the video but you forgot to remove your cognitive bias brain implant; You barely understood the video.
I really don't care about your dogmatic heliocentric crap - WHY ON EARTH would you think that I do when I have been studying FE for literally years and I'm a former heliocentric believer? You should keep your absurd beliefs and your faith to yourself because I'm talking about science here, not religious dogmas.
-
1. Is that supposed to be an argument when I'm posting in the Flat Earth Theory section of TFES Forum? OK Ptolemy. Earth is not a ball, but that is kind of besides the point of this particular thread.
2. Yeah, OK. One of three scenarios: You watched only a small portion of the video; You watched the video but you forgot to remove your cognitive bias brain implant; You barely understood the video.
I really don't care about your dogmatic heliocentric crap - WHY ON EARTH would you think that I do when I have been studying FE for literally years and I'm a former heliocentric believer? You should keep your absurd beliefs and your faith to yourself because I'm talking about science here, not religious dogmas.
You said the video would explain the connection between the ether and FE. It didn’t. I pointed that out, now you seem to be switching to something else.
I did, believe it or not, watch all of the video, and I understand what he’s saying; I just disagree with it, for the reasons I described. I note with interest that you’ve failed to actually address any of the points I raised, switching instead to ad hominem. That’s disappointing - not much point in debating if you aren’t going to respond. I’m not asking you to care, you are welcome to disagree, but the idea is that you read my points, and argue against them, using evidence. I’ve extended you the courtesy of doing that with your video, now will you actually address the points I made in response?
-
1. Is that supposed to be an argument when I'm posting in the Flat Earth Theory section of TFES Forum? OK Ptolemy. Earth is not a ball, but that is kind of besides the point of this particular thread.
2. Yeah, OK. One of three scenarios: You watched only a small portion of the video; You watched the video but you forgot to remove your cognitive bias brain implant; You barely understood the video.
I really don't care about your dogmatic heliocentric crap - WHY ON EARTH would you think that I do when I have been studying FE for literally years and I'm a former heliocentric believer? You should keep your absurd beliefs and your faith to yourself because I'm talking about science here, not religious dogmas.
You said the video would explain the connection between the ether and FE. It didn’t. I pointed that out, now you seem to be switching to something else.
I did, believe it or not, watch all of the video, and I understand what he’s saying; I just disagree with it, for the reasons I described. I note with interest that you’ve failed to actually address any of the points I raised, switching instead to ad hominem. That’s disappointing - not much point in debating if you aren’t going to respond. I’m not asking you to care, you are welcome to disagree, but the idea is that you read my points, and argue against them, using evidence. I’ve extended you the courtesy of doing that with your video, now will you actually address the points I made in response?
So if your axiom is that the Heliocentric model is true, when it is in fact not true - what then? What do you have then?
There is no "arguing" or "debating" when it comes to natural science; Natural science is about objective reality. Cold objective facts, not interpretations or assumptions.
-
So if your axiom is that the Heliocentric model is true, when it is in fact not true - what then? What do you have then?
There is no "arguing" or "debating" when it comes to natural science; Natural science is about objective reality. Cold objective facts, not interpretations or assumptions.
Ok, I get that you think it isn’t true. The critical question is why? I’ve shown you some examples of observations that perfectly fit the heliocentric model, and which do not fit the geocentric model. How do you explain our observations of the solar system and the stars around us from a geocentric perspective?
-
So if your axiom is that the Heliocentric model is true, when it is in fact not true - what then? What do you have then?
There is no "arguing" or "debating" when it comes to natural science; Natural science is about objective reality. Cold objective facts, not interpretations or assumptions.
Ok, I get that you think it isn’t true. The critical question is why? I’ve shown you some examples of observations that perfectly fit the heliocentric model, and which do not fit the geocentric model. How do you explain our observations of the solar system and the stars around us from a geocentric perspective?
Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?
-
Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?
I'd suggest that ships disappearing below the horizon as they sail out to sea and the bottom of distant landmarks or land masses being hidden below the horizon, and the amount they're hidden increasing with distance, is a pretty good start. EA is the explanation given here, but it does require an explanation. If the earth is flat then why can't you see the rest of the objects?
-
Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?
Ok...that's not even close to being an adequate response to the question I asked, but it's an interesting thought experiment. So, no stars, no planets, I'll throw in no moon as well. Just a blank day / night sky, with the sun as it appears to us now.
So, what could we deduce from surface-based experiments?
1. Survey the earth, so we can know accurate positions of places. This would be the first clue that we are on something spherical, as the distances between known places on large land masses don't make sense on a flat earth.
2. Take observations of the sun throughout the day from different places on the earth. This will establish the 24-hour cycle, as well as the annual cycle across the year, and the relationship between the sun's position in the sky and its variation with position - ie how it appears to somebody in, say South Africa compared to somebody looking at it from Europe. In London right now, for example, the sun is about 46 degrees above the horizon, at around 120 degrees true azimuth. In Cape Town right now it's about 20 degrees above the horizon on a heading of about 50 degrees true.
3. Observe gyroscopes, ring lasers, and large pendulums, and note how their behaviour varies with position. Orientated level to a local observer, they show a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour x sine of the local latitude.
4. The surveyed position data, combined with the rotation data and the observed sun position can only make sense on a rotating sphere. This also is also supported by the behaviour of weather systems, whose rotation in relation to pressure gradients at different latitudes in the two hemispheres only makes sense on a rotating earth. Tides also support this, although without a moon our tidal patterns would be very different.
5. The next challenge is to look at seasonal variations. The best explanation for this is a tilted earth. That would then require that the earth is either rocking back forth towards and away from the sun, or the earth and/or sun are in motion.
6. We can dismiss the rocking because a) that would require an energy source and b) we would detect the motion through gyroscopes, and yet we don't.
7. The tricky part, to get to your point, is whether we would be able to tell whether the sun was orbiting the earth, or whether the earth was orbiting the sun. I'm not sure that you could tell...but more importantly, I'm not sure there would actually be an answer. There is no fixed datum in space - things only move relative to one another, so if there were only two bodies, which one is orbiting the other is somewhat arbitrary.
8. This brings us back to my original point. It is the observations of other things - planets, their moons, our moon, and the stars, and indeed things such as tidal patterns that all sums to together to form a picture of a series of planets in orbit around the sun. How else would you explain any of that in a geocentric system? Could you even begin to draw a geocentric diagram of the earth, other planets and the sun that would correspond to our observations?
-
Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?
Ok...that's not even close to being an adequate response to the question I asked, but it's an interesting thought experiment. So, no stars, no planets, I'll throw in no moon as well. Just a blank day / night sky, with the sun as it appears to us now.
So, what could we deduce from surface-based experiments?
1. Survey the earth, so we can know accurate positions of places. This would be the first clue that we are on something spherical, as the distances between known places on large land masses don't make sense on a flat earth.
2. Take observations of the sun throughout the day from different places on the earth. This will establish the 24-hour cycle, as well as the annual cycle across the year, and the relationship between the sun's position in the sky and its variation with position - ie how it appears to somebody in, say South Africa compared to somebody looking at it from Europe. In London right now, for example, the sun is about 46 degrees above the horizon, at around 120 degrees true azimuth. In Cape Town right now it's about 20 degrees above the horizon on a heading of about 50 degrees true.
3. Observe gyroscopes, ring lasers, and large pendulums, and note how their behaviour varies with position. Orientated level to a local observer, they show a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour x sine of the local latitude.
4. The surveyed position data, combined with the rotation data and the observed sun position can only make sense on a rotating sphere. This also is also supported by the behaviour of weather systems, whose rotation in relation to pressure gradients at different latitudes in the two hemispheres only makes sense on a rotating earth. Tides also support this, although without a moon our tidal patterns would be very different.
5. The next challenge is to look at seasonal variations. The best explanation for this is a tilted earth. That would then require that the earth is either rocking back forth towards and away from the sun, or the earth and/or sun are in motion.
6. We can dismiss the rocking because a) that would require an energy source and b) we would detect the motion through gyroscopes, and yet we don't.
7. The tricky part, to get to your point, is whether we would be able to tell whether the sun was orbiting the earth, or whether the earth was orbiting the sun. I'm not sure that you could tell...but more importantly, I'm not sure there would actually be an answer. There is no fixed datum in space - things only move relative to one another, so if there were only two bodies, which one is orbiting the other is somewhat arbitrary.
8. This brings us back to my original point. It is the observations of other things - planets, their moons, our moon, and the stars, and indeed things such as tidal patterns that all sums to together to form a picture of a series of planets in orbit around the sun. How else would you explain any of that in a geocentric system? Could you even begin to draw a geocentric diagram of the earth, other planets and the sun that would correspond to our observations?
Didn't I tell you before that natural science is not about interpretations or assumptions? I know, it's kind of a mindfuck for you because all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions, because those models are completely contrary to our Flat Earth geocentric reality.
This thread is about ETHER VS. ROCKETSHIP EARTH. I don't have the time or the will to deal with zealots who are brain-glitched with circular reasonings and false axioms. So once again, you should keep your beliefs to yourself. Sorry to be so blunt, but I am a blunt person. I don't dance around - YOU should dance for ME because YOU are the reality denier.
-
all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions
Well that's not true. We have people in the ISS orbiting the earth as we speak, directly observing it.
We have photos of the globe earth, we have timelapse videos made from those photos showing the earth rotating in space.
Now, you can call all that fake if you want, but that's just argument from incredulity.
-
all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions
Well that's not true. We have people in the ISS orbiting the earth as we speak, directly observing it.
We have photos of the globe earth, we have timelapse videos made from those photos showing the earth rotating in space.
Now, you can call all that fake if you want, but that's just argument from incredulity.
AllAroundTheWorld (nice troll name, by the way), go back to your Electronic Arts game and your lollipops.
-
all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions
Well that's not true. We have people in the ISS orbiting the earth as we speak, directly observing it.
We have photos of the globe earth, we have timelapse videos made from those photos showing the earth rotating in space.
Now, you can call all that fake if you want, but that's just argument from incredulity.
AllAroundTheWorld (nice troll name, by the way), go back to your Electronic Arts game and your lollipops.
QED. Just calling everything which doesn't fit your worldview as fake.
You can prove anything to yourself if you do that.
-
Didn't I tell you before that natural science is not about interpretations or assumptions? I know, it's kind of a mindfuck for you because all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions, because those models are completely contrary to our Flat Earth geocentric reality.
This thread is about ETHER VS. ROCKETSHIP EARTH. I don't have the time or the will to deal with zealots who are brain-glitched with circular reasonings and false axioms. So once again, you should keep your beliefs to yourself. Sorry to be so blunt, but I am a blunt person. I don't dance around - YOU should dance for ME because YOU are the reality denier.
So in summary, you keep asking questions and posing challenges, and then when these are addressed you completely fail to engage with any of the points or questions asked of you in response. Nobody is dancing for anybody - you are just failing to make any case for your beliefs. The problem for you is that this is indistinguishable from somebody who hasn't a clue what they are talking about and is just making stuff up.
-
I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of acceleration and call that g.
The earth is not moving. It is stationary.
-
I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of acceleration and call that g.
The earth is not moving. It is stationary.
We trot out a measure of force. That force is proportional to mass, and causes an acceleration which we call g. We can measure that force very easily - you can do it at home using some weights and springs or a scale / balance. Regardless of your beliefs, you must surely concede that there is a force acting 'downwards' on everything on the earth? Even if you believe the earth to be stationary, you still have to explain what the force is. What is it, and why does it vary slightly depending on our location on the earth?
-
I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of acceleration and call that g.
The earth is not moving. It is stationary.
We trot out a measure of force.
No.
You trot out a measure of acceleration.
That force is proportional to mass, and causes an acceleration which we call g. We can measure that force very easily - you can do it at home using some weights and springs or a scale / balance. Regardless of your beliefs, you must surely concede that there is a force acting 'downwards' on everything on the earth? Even if you believe the earth to be stationary, you still have to explain what the force is. What is it, and why does it vary slightly depending on our location on the earth?
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.
^Here, we have RE adherents admitting "downwards" and. please notice, claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations) and:
...objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up?
^Another RE just typing stuff for laughs.
-
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.
And what's your evidence for any of that?
claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations)
Why wouldn't it? The force of gravity is proportional to mass and the distance between the centre of gravity of two objects. But the earth isn't perfectly spherical and not of uniform density, so that affects the strength of gravity in different locations. You know they use that to identify things like fossil fuel deposits under the earth?
Why do you think the existence of gravity needs "justifying"?
-
No.
You trot out a measure of acceleration.
That force is proportional to mass, and causes an acceleration which we call g. We can measure that force very easily - you can do it at home using some weights and springs or a scale / balance. Regardless of your beliefs, you must surely concede that there is a force acting 'downwards' on everything on the earth? Even if you believe the earth to be stationary, you still have to explain what the force is. What is it, and why does it vary slightly depending on our location on the earth?
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.
^Here, we have RE adherents admitting "downwards" and. please notice, claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations) and:
...objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up?
^Another RE just typing stuff for laughs.
Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. If I hang a one kilo weight on a spring screwed into the ceiling, the spring will stretch by a certain amount. There is a force acting on the weight. That force has to be something. We can measure it, and we can very accurately model and predict its behaviour. If not gravity, then what, exactly? We know that F=MA, as we can prove this using scenarios in the horizontal plane - kids do it at school using ticker tape timers and small carts on tracks etc. Knowing this, we can establish what the force is acting on a particular mass due to gravity, and therefore what the acceleration, g, due to gravity is. What are you proposing as replacement for this model? If I have a 1Kg weight, what is the force acting downwards on it? How would you work that out?
And yes - I said 'downwards'. I don't see why that is a triumphant gotcha for you. I am of course referring to whatever is 'down', local to you, the observer. Hence putting it in quotes.
-
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.
And what's your evidence for any of that?
My eyes.
I see a different fluid, hereinafter labeled "WATER," and how it acts on objects descending through it, causing the objects to behave differently within the period of descent due to the nature of currents and varying pressures.
No reason to believe aether, another fluid, would not behave likewise.
claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations)
Why wouldn't it? The force of gravity is proportional to mass and the distance between the centre of gravity of two objects. But the earth isn't perfectly spherical and not of uniform density, so that affects the strength of gravity in different locations. You know they use that to identify things like fossil fuel deposits under the earth?
Why do you think the existence of gravity needs "justifying"?
Do you see me asking you to justify Aesop or the Brothers Grimm?
I don't care about you justifying anything.
Just don't trot out a measure of acceleration, label it GRAVITY!!!, and expect that label to go unchallenged.
-
Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...
Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?
Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.
Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.
That is all we are discussing here.
-
Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...
Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?
Is the concept of a mass, at rest, on the end of a spring too much for you? And please don't change other people's quotes - that's very bad form indeed.
Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.
Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.
That is all we are discussing here.
So your 'aetheric pool' with its 'pressure and currents' exerts a force on all masses in direct proportion to the mass involved? Isn't that essentially the same thing? All you've done is change the title and conjure up some made-up mechanism.
-
Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...
Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?
Is the concept of a mass, at rest, on the end of a spring too much for you? And please don't change other people's quotes - that's very bad form indeed.
If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.
Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.
Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.
That is all we are discussing here.
So your 'aetheric pool' with its 'pressure and currents' exerts a force on all masses in direct proportion to the mass involved? Isn't that essentially the same thing? All you've done is change the title and conjure up some made-up mechanism.
I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.
We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.
We can even map them.
-
If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.
So you are struggling with the concept of something being on the end of a spring, at rest? You can only comprehend things bouncing on springs? Thanks for clarifying.
I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.
We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.
We can even map them.
Great. And it exerts a force on everything in proportion to its mass, pointing 'downwards', right?
-
If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.
So you are struggling with the concept of something being on the end of a spring, at rest? You can only comprehend things bouncing on springs? Thanks for clarifying. I must focus really great on words like bounce and at rest, because my spring example is worthless.
FTFY...
Okay, whatever trips your trigger
I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.
We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.
We can even map them.
Great. And it exerts a force on everything in proportion to its mass, pointing 'downwards', right?
When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)
-
So you are struggling with the concept of something being on the end of a spring, at rest? You can only comprehend things bouncing on springs? Thanks for clarifying. I must focus really great on words like bounce and at rest, because my spring example is worthless.
FTFY...
Okay, whatever trips your trigger
[/quote]
That just doesn't make any sense at all. I said at rest, you said bounce. Whatever.
When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)
Irrelevant, and a distraction. Focus on the important bit. Your aetheric pool, or whatever you want to call it, can we agree that it exerts a force in proportion to the mass it is acting on?
-
When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)
Do what? Of course things fall downwards. So long as we understand that "downwards" is a relative term, like left and right.
My question is what in your model means that when you release an object it moves downwards rather than upwards or to the side.
You said "aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether"
I mean, honestly, that sounds like word salad to me. But you mention density. A ball is more dense than the air below it, but it's more dense than the air beside it and above it too. So why does it go down? RE's claim is that it's because there's a force acting between the ball and the earth. And the direction of that force is towards the centre of gravity. Which, from any point on the earth's surface, is "downwards"
-
That just doesn't make any sense at all. I said at rest, you said bounce. Whatever.
Yeah, you said at rest and I said bounce.
What difference does it make?
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s2?
When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)
Irrelevant, and a distraction. Focus on the important bit. Your aetheric pool, or whatever you want to call it, can we agree that it exerts a force in proportion to the mass it is acting on?
LOL! WRITES the very word, "downwards" and when I quote him on it, he says "irrelevant" and "a distraction."
Yet complains when I paraphrase his prior post.
That is some extremely mad crapola you got going on there, Bob...do I spell that forwards or backwards, by the way?
-
When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)
Do what? Of course things fall downwards. So long as we understand that "downwards" is a relative term, like left and right.
My question is what in your model means that when you release an object it moves downwards rather than upwards or to the side.
You said "aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether"
I mean, honestly, that sounds like word salad to me. But you mention density. A ball is more dense than the air below it, but it's more dense than the air beside it and above it too. So why does it go down? RE's claim is that it's because there's a force acting between the ball and the earth. And the direction of that force is towards the centre of gravity. Which, from any point on the earth's surface, is "downwards"
It would sound like word salad to you, but kindly look up issues relating to fluids and the atmoplane.
It is the pressure aspect of the aether imparting the "downwards," force.
There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).
-
There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).
But the Canvendish experiment and the Schiehallion experiment (https://flatearth.ws/schiehallion) both demonstrate that masses attract.
-
[
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s2?
No. Because the acceleration of an object at rest in an inertial frame is zero. But there are still forces acting upon it. In the case of our 1kg mass on the end of a spring, at rest, there is a force acting down, equal to its mass x g (ie about 9.81 newtons), and there is an equal opposing force provided by the tension in the spring, meaning the acceleration of the object is zero. Cut the spring, and there is only the downwards gravity force, meaning it will accelerate at 1g towards the floor (ignoring air resistance forces, which will be negligible in this scenario). This is all measurable and yes, I’ve done experiments just like it, as have most school physics students.
Aside from hurling insults around, you, much like Duality, are studiously avoiding providing any answers yourself. Is that because you don’t have any?
-
There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).
But the Canvendish experiment and the Schiehallion experiment (https://flatearth.ws/schiehallion) both demonstrate that masses attract.
Neither did anything of the sort. Not all possible variables were accounted for in either experiment.
-
[
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s2?
No. Because the acceleration of an object at rest in an inertial frame is zero. But there are still forces acting upon it. In the case of our 1kg mass on the end of a spring, at rest, there is a force acting down, equal to its mass x g (ie about 9.81 newtons), and there is an equal opposing force provided by the tension in the spring, meaning the acceleration of the object is zero. Cut the spring, and there is only the downwards gravity force, meaning it will accelerate at 1g towards the floor (ignoring air resistance forces, which will be negligible in this scenario). This is all measurable and yes, I’ve done experiments just like it, as have most school physics students.
Aside from hurling insults around, you, much like Duality, are studiously avoiding providing any answers yourself. Is that because you don’t have any?
Hurling insults?
I provided legitimate commentary directly related to the nature of your posts, which, by the way, supports the notion you have no legitimate business commenting in this thread at all.
Again, providing a measure of the acceleration of an object lends no evidence as to cause.
I provided my explanation.
You don't like my explanation.
Great.
-
[
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s2?
No. Because the acceleration of an object at rest in an inertial frame is zero. But there are still forces acting upon it. In the case of our 1kg mass on the end of a spring, at rest, there is a force acting down, equal to its mass x g (ie about 9.81 newtons), and there is an equal opposing force provided by the tension in the spring, meaning the acceleration of the object is zero. Cut the spring, and there is only the downwards gravity force, meaning it will accelerate at 1g towards the floor (ignoring air resistance forces, which will be negligible in this scenario). This is all measurable and yes, I’ve done experiments just like it, as have most school physics students.
;D It's funny how with every comment you make you further demonstrate that you know nothing about relativity, even though you like to defend it and tell us how wonderful it is.
Hilariously, you're stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics that they now only teach in highschools where the highschool teachers pretend that it isn't incompatible with relativity because the highschooler mind isn't totally warped yet like "spacetime".
-
[
;D It's funny how with every comment you make you further demonstrate that you know nothing about relativity, even though you like to defend it and tell us how wonderful it is.
Hilariously, you're stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics that they now only teach in highschools where the highschool teachers pretend that it isn't incompatible with relativity because the highschooler mind isn't totally warped yet like "spacetime".
Well, go on then, enlighten us. Take the scenario I described and analyse it using your superior knowledge. Or just address any of the numerous questions and points made in previous points that you continue to avoid. Just one would be a start.
-
[
;D It's funny how with every comment you make you further demonstrate that you know nothing about relativity, even though you like to defend it and tell us how wonderful it is.
Hilariously, you're stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics that they now only teach in highschools where the highschool teachers pretend that it isn't incompatible with relativity because the highschooler mind isn't totally warped yet like "spacetime".
Well, go on then, enlighten us. Take the scenario I described and analyse it using your superior knowledge. Or just address any of the numerous questions and points made in previous points that you continue to avoid. Just one would be a start.
It's already been explained thousands of times. Here's one recent example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2spedfKxI
-
It's already been explained thousands of times. Here's one recent example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2spedfKxI
Ok, thanks for that. Before we dive into the detail of the video, can you just clarify that you’re offering that up as something you agree with?
-
It's already been explained thousands of times. Here's one recent example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2spedfKxI
Ok, thanks for that. Before we dive into the detail of the video, can you just clarify that you’re offering that up as something you agree with?
There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.
The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).
-
I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.
We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.
We can even map them.
We can? Please explain how these aether currents can be detected, identified and mapped. As I understand it, the classical view of aether is that it is static medium (i.e., an absolute frame of reference that would totally destroy relativity), hence the MM experiments that were looking for the aether drift as the earth moved through it.
-
I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.
We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.
We can even map them.
We can? Please explain how these aether currents can be detected, identified and mapped. As I understand it, the classical view of aether is that it is static medium (i.e., an absolute frame of reference that would totally destroy relativity), hence the MM experiments that were looking for the aether drift as the earth moved through it.
Makes sense that it would be a static medium, but you can't measure that from Earth.
Michelson & Morley didn't actually get a null result. They measured some Ether motion that everyone dismissed as measurement error because they were heliocentrists and it didn't match the expected value.
-
There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.
The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.
That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.
-
There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.
The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.
That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.
You literally have no clue what you're talking about. It's amazing how with every reply you dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
All mainstream relativists agree that gravity is not a force. Don't believe me? You don't have to believe me or him - take it from the horse's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
-
There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.
The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.
That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.
You literally have no clue what you're talking about. It's amazing how with every reply you dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
All mainstream relativists agree that gravity is not a force. Don't believe me? You don't have to believe me or him - take it from the horse's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
I’m well aware of that. I’m not arguing against that view either. I’m just saying that if you don’t understand the basics, as you, the two angry chaps in the slinky video, and Tom clearly do not, then I wouldn’t try to wrap your head around relativity. For all intents and purposes, Newtonian physics / maths works perfectly to explain and model the world around us, and to build the cars, buildings, boats, bridges, aircraft, rockets, satellites, etc that humans use every day. I’d try to grasp how that works before you move onto the next level.
-
There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.
The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.
That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.
You literally have no clue what you're talking about. It's amazing how with every reply you dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
All mainstream relativists agree that gravity is not a force. Don't believe me? You don't have to believe me or him - take it from the horse's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
I’m well aware of that. I’m not arguing against that view either. I’m just saying that if you don’t understand the basics, as you, the two angry chaps in the slinky video, and Tom clearly do not, then I wouldn’t try to wrap your head around relativity. For all intents and purposes, Newtonian physics / maths works perfectly to explain and model the world around us, and to build the cars, buildings, boats, bridges, aircraft, rockets, satellites, etc that humans use every day. I’d try to grasp how that works before you move onto the next level.
LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.
Stick to your gyroscopes, eh? ;D
-
Guys, never pretend that you understand physics when you don't, or you'll end up looking like SillyBob here.
-
[
LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.
Stick to your gyroscopes, eh? ;D
I’ll stick to maths (which doesn’t equal reality, of course, but rather models it, and provides us with a means to understand our world), physics, and yes, gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.
You stick to public demonstrations that you slept through your physics and maths classes, and we’ll both be happy.
Good day.
-
[
LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.
Stick to your gyroscopes, eh? ;D
I’ll stick to maths (which doesn’t equal reality, of course, but rather models it, and provides us with a means to understand our world), physics, and yes, gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.
You stick to public demonstrations that you slept through your physics and maths classes, and we’ll both be happy.
Good day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDphUib5iG4
-
[
LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.
Stick to your gyroscopes, eh? ;D
I’ll stick to maths (which doesn’t equal reality, of course, but rather models it, and provides us with a means to understand our world), physics, and yes, gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.
You stick to public demonstrations that you slept through your physics and maths classes, and we’ll both be happy.
Good day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDphUib5iG4
QED.
-
The depths of your misunderstanding of very basic Newtonian physics is so profound that I think it's probably best if you work on that before you dip your toes in the wonderful world of relativity, as you have in some of your other posts here.
The sensation, or state, of weightlessness occurs when there is no force acting between the component parts of a body. For a human, we 'feel' weightless when there is no tension or compression in our body - witness the floating hair of the girl in your vomit comet photo. This can either be because there is no force acting on us at all - a pretty much impossible situation - or because all of the particles that we are made of are accelerating at the same rate due to some external force. If we accelerate due to some external influence, like going up in a lift, we feel the acceleration because the lift only applies a force to our feet. Our feet have to accelerate our ankles, our ankles push up through our legs, hips, etc - there is compression in our bodies due to this transmitted force. But if we fall due to gravity, we feel weightless because all of the particles in our bodies experience a force proportionate to their mass, meaning there is no tension or compression.
You can see this in your balloon diagram.
At rest, a balloon filled with water will sag down, as the elastic material stretches to counter the weight of the contents. In freefall, the water and the balloon are all being acted on by gravity in proportion to their respective masses, so the tension in the balloon returns it to a natural sphere.
There's nothing in any of this that contradicts the equivalence principle, or that falsifies our typical, newtonian understanding of gravity.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Newtonian Gravity does not work as a coherent physical theory and has been long discredited. The weightlessness and simultaneous falling of between bodies of different masses in Newtonian theory does not work without absurd mechanisms.
See this article by astrophysicist Paul Sutter:
https://www.space.com/40920-relativity-power-of-equivalence.html
Einstein's first insight into the nature of gravity was to put a new twist on an old idea. In Isaac Newton's original mathematical description of gravity ("OG"?), there's an odd coincidence when it comes to the concept of "mass." In one famous equation, F = ma, mass is your inertia — how much oomph it takes to shove you along. In Newton's other equation on gravity, mass is more like gravitational charge — the level of attraction you might feel toward the Earth, for example.
Objects with twice the mass feel twice the attraction toward the Earth, and should therefore fall twice as quickly. But years back, Galileo Galilei had conclusively shown that they don't: Neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.
Thus for Newton's theory to work, inertial mass had to be the same as gravitational mass, but only by sheer coincidence: there was no reason for this equality to hold. For an object with twice the mass, the Earth may pull on it twice as strongly, but this is perfectly canceled out by the fact that it's now twice as hard to get the object moving. Inertial and gravitational masses move in perfect lockstep.
This odd correspondence had long been a puzzle in gravitational circles, but in 1907, Einstein took it one step further. The physicist imagined what would happen if you were to fall from a great height. Again neglecting air resistance, your inertial and gravitational masses would cancel, making you feel perfectly weightless, as if there were no gravity at all. But zero-gravity environments are precisely the playground of Special Relativity, the theory he had cooked up just a couple years prior that wove our conceptions of space and time into the unified fabric of spacetime.
To Einstein, this was a major clue. Lurking in the shadows of gravity was his precious special relativity and the essential concept of space-time, and what made that realization possible was the elevation of the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses into a fundamental principle, rather than the awkward afterthought it had been.
Newtonian Gravity requires a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence to work. This is an ad-hoc mechanism to explain physical phenomena. As written by the astrophysicist above, under a plain interpretation of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects, the body with twice the mass should fall faster.
In RE Theory's Newtonian Gravity the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is also what causes freefall weightlessness. This is the explanation for why astronauts are weightless in Round Earth Theory's Newtonian Gravity:
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html
It was while pondering this problem that Einstein hit upon what he later described as "the happiest thought of my life." If began when he suddenly saw new significance in a commonplace of Newtonian gravity. A body in free fall in Newtonian gravity does not feel its own weight. This effect is very familiar to us now. We have all watched space-walkers floating weightlessly outside their capsules. They are in free fall above the earth, orbiting with their space stations, and that free fall cancels their weight.
This effect came about from an apparently accidental agreement of two quantities in Newtonian theory: the inertial mass of a body happens to equal its gravitational mass exactly. Einstein now believed that this equality could be no accident. He needed to find a gravitation theory in which this equality is a necessity.
See this slide from Introduction to Cosmology by the 4th Cosmology School at Cracow, Poland (http://cosmoschool2018.oa.uj.edu.pl/pdfs/day3/CosmoSchool_Cracow2018_PiorkowskaKurpas.pdf):
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/5/54/Gravity_coincidence.png)
-
You have no idea what you are talking about. Newtonian Gravity does not work as a coherent physical theory and has been long discredited. The weightlessness and simultaneous falling of between bodies of different masses in Newtonian theory does not work without absurd mechanisms.
I very much do know what I'm talking about.
Earlier in this thread, you said (when discussing the zero g hair picture):
If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms "down", how could the atoms in the hair flow freely up and down without resistance in free-fall? Surely if she were to mold her hair into a certain shape it should not flow up and down freely without resistance if there were a phenomenon pulling all atoms downwards.
In a situation where you are losing a game tug-of-war with an elephant and are being pulled along, any time you pull against the rope it creates resistance against the direction you are being pulled in. If the atoms in the hair are all being pulled down towards the earth they should not be allowed to float freely up and down without resistance. Yet water, hair, and various types of materials act weightless in a zero-g freefall flight.
All of this and more is easy evidence that the true physical nature of gravity is that of an upwardly accelerating earth.
This is simply incorrect - much like the slinky video people, you are publicly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. There is nothing in Newtonian understandings of gravity or F=MA etc that is at odds with what we observe in freefall, for example. Likewise, the hypothetical '1g lift' thought experiment is spot on - you would not be able to tell the difference between that scenario or what we experience on earth. To that end, your UA idea works on one level - if the earth was endlessly accelerating upwards, there would indeed be the same 'experience' for the people living on its surface. There are, of course, other reasons why that theory is utterly absurd - not relevant here - but the premise of equivalence is entirely sound.
You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works. The issue isn't that it is wrong, per se, but rather that there is something more fundamental going on - it doesn't explain everything. For that, we need more modern tools - enter relativity etc.
I wasn't claiming that the science ends with Newton. My point is that if you don't understand the basics - which you clearly don't - there is little point in lifting the lid on the more advanced stuff.
-
This is simply incorrect - much like the slinky video people, you are publicly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. There is nothing in Newtonian understandings of gravity or F=MA etc that is at odds with what we observe in freefall, for example.
The above quotes provided by the astrophysicist at space.com and by pitt.edu show the problem with the effect that causes weightlessness - the separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence. Newtonian Gravity was rejected as incoherent because of this.
After describing the issues with Newtonian Gravity the space.com article goes on to describe Einstein's "Happiest Thought" that a man would not experience his weight in freefall as a sticking point. Einstein also repeated this thought as his basis for his theories and principle on numerous occasions. If this were cleanly explained in Newtonian Gravity and was of no relevance, why would space.com segway to this curiosity of Einstein? Obviously this does matter and the issue here is a matter of understanding and reading comprehension on your part.
You have cited nothing. On this forum you continuously post and cite only yourself as your source.
You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works.
Actually those things use Newtonian gravity + the absurd mechanisms like the separation of inertial and gravitational masses that require it to work. It was on basis of this ad-hoc mechanism that the theory was discredited. The theory does not work without those mechanisms and would otherwise make blatantly wrong predictions, as explained by the above space.com article.
A theory that works is a different matter than it being discredited as an incoherent theory. You have a low comprehension of this and are using circular reasoning to justify something that has been discredited.
-
This is simply incorrect - much like the slinky video people, you are publicly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. There is nothing in Newtonian understandings of gravity or F=MA etc that is at odds with what we observe in freefall, for example.
The above quotes provided by the astrophysicist at space.com and by pitt.edu show the problem with the effect that causes weightlessness - the separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence. Newtonian Gravity was rejected as incoherent because of this.
After describing the issues with Newtonian Gravity the space.com article goes on to describe Einstein's "Happiest Thought" that a man would not experience his weight in freefall as a sticking point. Einstein also repeated this thought as his basis for his theories and principle on numerous occasions. If this were cleanly explained in Newtonian Gravity and was of no relevance, why would space.com segway to this curiosity of Einstein? Obviously this does matter and the issue here is a matter of understanding and reading comprehension on your part.
You have cited nothing. On this forum you continuously post and cite only yourself as your source.
You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works.
Actually those things use Newtonian gravity + the absurd mechanisms like the separation of inertial and gravitational masses that require it to work. It was on basis of this ad-hoc mechanism that the theory was discredited. The theory does not work without those mechanisms and would otherwise make blatantly wrong predictions, as explained by the above space.com article.
A theory that works is a different matter than it being discredited as an incoherent theory. You have a low comprehension of this and are using circular reasoning to justify something that has been discredited.
Tom I would like to thank you for the pitt.edu article, it's most interesting as an introduction to the development of Einstein's thinking. However, I must ask if you've read it through yourself? You claim Newtonian gravitational theory has been "discredited as incoherent", but that same article clearly says "...Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. I'm still not sure what your difficulty with the equivalence principle is: that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent is a great mystery?? There are still mysteries that scientific enquiry hasn't solved...
-
Tom I would like to thank you for the pitt.edu article, it's most interesting as an introduction to the development of Einstein's thinking. However, I must ask if you've read it through yourself? You claim Newtonian gravitational theory has been "discredited as incoherent", but that same article clearly says "...Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. I'm still not sure what your difficulty with the equivalence principle is: that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent is a great mystery?? There are still mysteries that scientific enquiry hasn't solved...
You and SteelyBob are arguing on basis of "Newtonian Gravity works for X". The issue is not whether Newtonian Gravity works (putting aside that neither it or GR works for the Three Body Problem). The issue is whether it is a coherent theory with ad-hoc mechanisms to make it work. The space.com article clearly relates that there are forced mechanisms to make it work, and that it would otherwise make drastically wrong predictions.
The question of whether Newtonian Gravity can work to build bridges is immaterial to the ad-hoc mechanisms in it which allow it to work. It was discredited on basis of the ad-hoc mechanisms.
-
The above quotes provided by the astrophysicist at space.com and by pitt.edu show the problem with the effect that causes weightlessness - the separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence. Newtonian Gravity was rejected as incoherent because of this.
After describing the issues with Newtonian Gravity the space.com article goes on to describe Einstein's "Happiest Thought" that a man would not experience his weight in freefall as a sticking point. Einstein also repeated this thought as his basis for his theories and principle on numerous occasions. If this were cleanly explained in Newtonian Gravity and was of no relevance, why would space.com segway to this curiosity of Einstein? Obviously this does matter and the issue here is a matter of understanding and reading comprehension on your part.
You have cited nothing. On this forum you continuously post and cite only yourself as your source.
You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works.
Actually those things use Newtonian gravity + the absurd mechanisms like the separation of inertial and gravitational masses that require it to work. It was on basis of this ad-hoc mechanism that the theory was discredited. The theory does not work without those mechanisms and would otherwise make blatantly wrong predictions, as explained by the above space.com article.
A theory that works is a different matter than it being discredited as an incoherent theory. You have a low comprehension of this and are using circular reasoning to justify something that has been discredited.
The point that you are spectacularly missing is that the interesting equality of gravitational and inertial mass is not in dispute; nor is the subsequent evolution of scientific thinking in this area. It’s all good - there’s no argument there. You’ve instead focused on the example of freefall - regardless of your views on Einstein’s work, the fact remains that in a scenario where inertial and gravitational mass are identical, the hair in that freefall picture is behaving exactly as we would expect…if we understand basic maths and physics. You do not understand, which is why you are claiming a difference.
-
This is what SillyBob believes physics is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMELHUAzSM
This is what physics actually is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rZtIyEFJpE
There are quantum ""physicists"" who will tell you that the bullets aren't actually hitting anything, and they have a mathematical model to prove it LOL.
-
gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhwvCKrUq9U
-
gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhwvCKrUq9U
That’s a great demonstration of precession. Thanks for sharing.
The same principle is used in aircraft directional gyros to correct for the earth’s rotation - known as the drift or lat nut, as it needs to be adjusted for latitude.
https://www.pilot18.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2-INS-Gyro-Instruments.pdf (https://www.pilot18.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2-INS-Gyro-Instruments.pdf)
-
gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhwvCKrUq9U
That’s a great demonstration of precession. Thanks for sharing.
The same principle is used in aircraft directional gyros to correct for the earth’s rotation - known as the drift or lat nut, as it needs to be adjusted for latitude.
https://www.pilot18.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2-INS-Gyro-Instruments.pdf (https://www.pilot18.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2-INS-Gyro-Instruments.pdf)
"It izh spinin and it izh precesin like our planet Errth!" :D
Ok, SillyBob the False Axiom Guy - please stay on topic because this thread isn't about the gyroscopic pear Earth. Or just leave and be a gyroscopic pear Earth believer somewhere else, which is always an option.