21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 23, 2018, 09:50:08 PM »

chirp, chirp.....chirp, chirp.......chirp, chirp.........

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 23, 2018, 09:38:34 PM »

Distances and velocities calculations are based on the degree of redshift.

No, the redshift depends on the recession velocity of the source which in turn is dependent on the distance between source and observer:

Z = V/C = lambda_obs - lambda_rest/lambda_rest
[/sub]

You seem to be getting confused.

A ripple in the sea of ether is a transverse wave, it cannot exceed the speed of light.

A gravitational wave, by contrast, is a longitudinal wave at superluminal speeds.

So you appear to be suggesting that these waves travel at different speeds (consistent with all your links to Whittaker etc.) but have not refuted the GW170817 observation that the two wave types were observed arriving in synchronicity. Do you agree this was observed? No 'calculations' needed, it was directly observed.

So are you saying that the Ether somehow compensated? If so, you do understand how crazy that sounds. How would they happen to arrive on Earth at the same time after travelling 130 million light years. Coincidence, no....you can't be saying that.

I actually cannot work out what you are trying to say with the red shift / ether comments!

Come on.....this is a lost cause. Its time you modified your ideas not time the world of Physics altered its laws.

As they say in 'Dragons den'.........'Im afraid,....I'm out!'

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 23, 2018, 07:39:29 PM »

Look, slow down, take a deep breath and lets have some common sense.

It is very, very, very simple. 4000 Astronomers across the globe are in agreement on this. What chance do you think that you have answers that they are not seeing.

Explain to me how it is possible to misinterpret a situation where gravitational waves and light waves are simultaneously detected coming from the same point in a distant galaxy.

Ignore the links and the logic that you think resides therein for a moment. Lets deal with this ....one.....single.....point.

Two Neutron stars collide
Huge disturbance of space time creates ripples of gravitational waves
simultaneously a burst of energy (including electromagnetic) is released
Over countless eons and distances these waves travel to Earth
Any difference in speed of propagation would be expressed as a difference in distance covered and thus time received
LIGO detects the gravitational waves and automatic telescopes around the world are directed to the region of the sky where the signal originated
Within a reasonable error margin it is deduced that the light and gravity waves arrived together

What part of this does not stand up?

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 23, 2018, 07:00:26 PM »

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

So he continues with....

At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.

Which is exactly why Cavendish didn't ignore them!

....However, just before we dissect this can I just say.......how likely is it that this meticulous scientist, famed for his legendary attention to detail, even among scientists down through the ages...... What tiny chance is there that Cavendish had a 'bad day at the office' and his seminal experiment is actually bogus and masses DON'T actually attract each other (despite all the other DIFFERENT methods available to corroborate the result). Versus the chance that Miles Mathis, some dude who believes the value of Pi is 4, yup you heard right!!! Pi =4 people! Go get your circles out and measure 'em all again cause 2 x pi x r is no longer valid for calculating circumferences. In fact the new equation according to this dufus is C=8xr (go draw a circle and see how that looks!! teeheehee)

So Miles can't get his head around why the walls of the shed can be ignored. I suspect Miles struggles to figure out how to get his porridge out the packet in the morning but here goes........:

1. The walls of a rectangular building are symmetrical, therefor superficially their effects somewhat cancel out. In the case of a circular room the effect would be entirely cancelled and is studied in first year Physics where it is known as a 'shell of mass'.

2. The effect of mass not on the plane of rotation of the experiment would reduce as the cosine until mass directly overhead would have zero affect.
 
3. Wood is approximately 15 times less dense than lead and so would contain much 15 x less mass per unit volume.

and by far the biggest effect

4. The inverse square law; which states that the effect of the force reduces as the square of the distance. So double the distance the effect is quartered. Triple it and the effect is 1/9th etc.

The size of the wooden box was 10ft and the metal balls were 6ft apart which leaves 2ft between the metal balls and the wooden walls at their closest point. However the force of attraction at this point would be perpendicular to the allowed vector of motion. In other words, it would be the next wall over, the one that the ball was currently moving towards that would be doing the attracting that would create a moment of torque. The distance at this point would be 5ft where the force of attraction would be approximately 1/45th of the force (using 1/r²)

And of course don't forget that the attractive force at this point would be exactly cancelled by the opposite wall (behind). Only as the metal ball rotated closer to the wall in front of it would the attraction from that wall begin to exceed that from behind but this would at the same time be reduced as the cosine function due to the restriction of the vector of motion.

Anyhooo......combining these effects I have little doubt in stating that the contribution from the walls would be less by some three orders of magnitude. (combine points 3 and 4 only gives 1/45 x 1/15 = 1/675 even if we IGNORE the symmetry cancellation of point 1. I'm being generous!).


Miles continues with this absolute classic....

Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that ......may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered.

Aside from the fact the Miles refers to E/M fields which would indicate 'light' we will assume that he meant electrostatic and magnetic fields. We can immediately eliminate magnetic fields as lead is not a magnetic material so would be unaffected. It is unclear what precautions might have been taken to reduce the effect of static charge build up but given that lead is a conductor it would have been easy to discharge the balls with a simple wire to Earth before running the experiment. Miles cannot confirm that this was not done.

Ok - that's all for now. It is getting tiresome reading this attempted hatchet job that is devoid of proper scientific analysis. It is clear that Miles is unable to conceive how to analyse the phenomena he invokes. Perhaps in future there should be a rule about not referencing crackpots with zero credibility. The type of person I'm thinking of would be schizophrenics who hear voices, people with persecution complexes, people with no Scientific qualifications or background, people who believe pi is anything other than 3.14....that sort of thing?

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 23, 2018, 05:12:25 PM »

You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this.

Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses.

Good lord man, please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.  I have direct quoted you already pointing out your ignorance....the fact you don't get it is telling


And that is not what gravity is, seriously, have you ever taken physics.  That is neither the Einstein or Newtonian definition... Is it your own (again)?

Ok look.....I can see you really have got a thing for this. I wouldn't want to disappoint:

One cannot argue with the Mathematics:

g = -GM/r² where g = gravitational acceleration, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the attracting body and r the distance between the two objects.

This is Newton's universal law of gravitation.

If we introduce the second object with mass = m we have,

F = m x g = -GmM/r² which is equivalent to F = m x a that is to say g is equivalent to a in the classical 'Newtonian' model of gravitation.

We can say this because in Physics we understand properties by their units and if they are vectors by their angular components also. In Physics we essential describe everything in terms of other things. It is rare that any property is expressed so fundamentally that it cannot be reduced any further. A rare example of this would be E=mc² but even here we are unable to really define what mass or energy actually are. In which case, If I wanted to be a real pedant I could insist on every property being expressed in terms of length, mass, time and charge. That would get pretty tedious, no?!

Anyway, I have generally being referring to this classical model in my descriptions of gravity since it is simple and based on observation.

For a more fundamental treatment of what 'gravity' is we must expand our understanding to field theory, not just that we must alter our perception of the Cartesian co-ordinate system in which objects move.

Einstein thus formulated that objects do not as such 'accelerate' in gravity fields (although IT IS STILL PERFECTLY VALID TO DISCUSS THEM DOING SO AS ALL OBSERVATIONS AGREE WITH THIS CLASSICAL FORM OF GRAVITATIONAL THEORY) rather they travel in straight lines (geodesics) in space-time. Gravity in this model is thus seen as a warping of space time such that a curve is the shortest distance between two points.

Now as I said, 99.9% of the population, including the kids I teach use the Newtonian model of gravitation in order to make rational sense of the concept and discuss it without semantics clouding the wider debate. They do not live in a world of space-time or geodesic curves. Usually, I do not either. Personally I do not see the relevance to the discussion we are having here. There is a whole other thread currently ongoing where I invoke Einsteins general theory of gravitation as a method of supporting RE theory. As a matter of fact, I think it deserves its own thread.

I am not sure if you want me to use classical or modern interpretations of gravity but for the sake of allowing the conversation to flow can we please drop this already?

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 23, 2018, 04:34:02 PM »

I am still ploughing my way through this overblown dirge of pseudo scientific technobabble. But the clangers come thick and fast....

Any force below a certain minimum amount will not be expressed, and will not lead to motion. Especially with the example of the apple, I suspect that the air pressure between the apple and the torsion bar would prevent the calculated force from expressing itself.

This is S2 level Physics i.e. kids aged 12 should be able to point out the flaws in this statement after being taught Forces. Pressure is not a force, rather it is a Force applied equally over all surface of the apple, therefor cancelling each other. That's Newton's First Law. The only forces that would matter here would be un-balanced forces that would seek to accelerate the apple. That is Newton's Second Law. What would be of consequence would be the air that would need to be displaced, which would innevitably occur under the action of a continuous force irrespective of the air pressure.

What credentials has this barely literate (in the scientific sense) Miles Mathis that he is to be stacked up against a legend of the Scientific community. A man famed for his rigour and carefulness in carrying out scientific experiments.

However......let us persist and see what this dude has to say. In the interests of fairness! After all, I am sure we are going to find that he conducted his own experiment in order to uncover the systematic or random errors that might not have been considered by Cavendish.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 23, 2018, 03:45:40 PM »

You still do not understand Whittaker's papers do you?

Look, lets no go down a rabbit hole from 1903. I certainly do understand the premise of his paper although it is beyond me these days to confirm the complex mathematics. We will assume the mathematics is correct given peer review accepts it as so.

The main crux of this paper seems to be the interpretation of gravity as waves and particularly the speed that those waves can propagate.

You are certainly clear in YOUR interpretation of this work:

Transverse waves = speed of light = law of conservation of energy

Longitudinal scalar waves = superluminal speed = defiance of the law of conservation of energy

We simply must deal with the last point since it is classic FE theory to make statement totally contrary to normal mainstream scientific theory but without data to back it up.

First, lets get some context. The history of gravity has Laplace attempting to reconcile a finite gravitational speed with Newton's theory. Laplace concluded that the speed of gravitational interactions is at least 7×10⁶ times the speed of light. However, this ignored Lorentz' invariance of static fields which subsequently led to Einstein's General theory of gravitation where the speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of light.

Now the General theory is one of those theories that keeps coming up Trumps. Predictions are made, observations made, data collected and guess what; the good ol' general theory keeps on working!

Which brings us to GW170817. This was one of the most significant scientific events of the last 100 years. It is highly relevant to out current debate. I am sure you are familiar with this. On the 17th of August gravitational waves from two neutron stars collapsing were detected at three different locations (2 LIGO / 1 VIRGO). What was unique here was that Astronomers were also able to make optical observations of the event.

The event also provides a limit on the difference between the speed of light and that of gravity. Assuming the first photons were emitted between zero and ten seconds after peak gravitational wave emission, the difference between the speeds of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, vGW − vEM, is constrained to between −3×10−15 and +7×10−16 times the speed of light, which improves on the previous estimate by about 14 orders of magnitude. In addition, it allowed investigation of the equivalence principle (through Shapiro delay measurement) and Lorentz invariance. The limits of possible violations of Lorentz invariance (values of 'gravity sector coefficients') are reduced by the new observations, by up to ten orders of magnitude. GW170817 also excluded some alternatives to general relativity, including variants of scalar–tensor theory, Hořava–Lifshitz gravity, Dark Matter Emulators and bimetric gravity.

The interest and effort was global: the paper describing the multi-messenger observations[1] is coauthored by almost 4,000 astronomers (about one-third of the worldwide astronomical community) from more than 900 institutions, using more than 70 observatories on all seven continents and in space

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817

So stacked up against your paper from 1903 is almost the entire astronomical community interpreting data from some of the most expensive and accurate measurement devices ever made by mankind stating quite categorically that gravity waves travel at the same speed as light waves, thus further proving Einsteins general theory of gravitation. There simply could not be a more comlete and comprehensive refutation of your liberal interpretation of Whitaker's paper.

Benefit of the doubt should at least be given to Whitaker though, perhaps he was not aware of Lorentz' invariance of static fields or was yet to formulate that into his calculations. In any event, if we were to imagine, like Whitaker, that gravity waves need not propagate at the speed of light indeed 'may be enormously greater' he would still run up against the same problems that those subscribing to the Newtonian theory of gravitation found. Namely its contradiction via the elliptical orbit of Mercury preceding at a significantly different rate from that predicted.

What is unforgivable however, is you, persisting in spamming this forum with papers from over 100 years ago but missing the HARD DATA that backs up more modern theories that continue to stand up to far worse scrutiny than that which you attempt to offer.

I'm sure you are a very smart person, but this tactic of trawling the history books for esoteric theories that seed doubt and baffle with endless mathematics is bogus. What is sad is that people like you should be rejoicing in events such as GW170817. Mankind is making progress, at least in the sciences if not in the broader human context. One cant help wonder that part of the reason is fear, mistrust, misinformation and yes, superstition.

I hope this new and modern data is valid in your eyes, otherwise we have nothing further to discuss.

"It's the economy data stupid"

Can you now understand what is meant by the UNIFICATION of electromagnetism and gravity?

What I understand is that we will be waiting a while longer.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 23, 2018, 12:54:04 PM »

You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this. YOU are inferring it in order to do that classic thing that FE's do........create a smokescreen around the real issue.

Now back to the main event.....

you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right??  kind of another import part you are missing.

This is EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. I keep pointing out that proper Physics is based on observations and measurements. Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses. This has been measured indeed YOU could measure it yourself if you cared to do so.

You recently chastised a poster for not reading previous posts....dude it is you that seems unable to penetrate the simple logic being laid out in previous posts. Remember my reference to the Schiehallion experiment?

The famous Schiehallion experiment involved measuring the deviation of a plumb line placed next to the mountain Schiehallion in Perthshire (I used to live there). The deviation gives an instant indication of the evident force between masses and the numbers are in line with the aforementioned equation. Only when you can do such a direct observational experiment can you say something is 'observed'.

or we have the classic Cavendish experiment, referenced by the last poster:

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

Now finally, stop dodging the issue.....how is it possible to have a Universal acceleration that is slightly modified by the action of celestial gravitation where the only factor influencing CG is the altitude (i.e. proximity to celestial bodies).

As I have repeatedly pointed out there are gravity measurements that can be quoted for identical altitudes on Earth that are different. UA and CG cannot account for that. However, a system where the mass of the Earth itself attracts objects CAN!

DO you agree that attraction between masses can be demonstrated and that this forms the basis of a universal Law of gravitation between ALL masses. It is you that must answer this before we 'move on'.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 23, 2018, 12:16:15 PM »

You make this statement:

"Whittaker proved the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation"

you then quote this segment of his conclusion:

These results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light ... [and] would require that gravity be propagated with a finite velocity, which however need not be the same as that of light [emphasis added], and may be enormously greater ..."

A great deal of context is missing. The bolded statement gives the impression that a theory unifying EM and gravitational forces has been formulated. This is NOT what Whitaker says in the body of the paragraph. I quote that whole section of the conclusion:

But these results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light: for the undulatory phenomena just described, in which the varying vector is a gravitational force perpendicular to the wave front, may be compared with the undulatory phenomena made familiar by the electromagnetic theory of light, in which the varying vectors consist of electric and magnetic forces parallel to the wavefront. The waves are in other respects exactly similar, and it seems possible that an identical property of the medium ensures their transmission through space.

Not the phrase "may be be compared". This is contrary to the word "assimilate". The definition of assimilate is 'to understand and remember new information and make it part of your basic knowledge'.(Cambridge). THAT is the context that Whittaker was referring to.

So, certainly it seems Whittaker was ahead of his time in formulating a theory of gravitational waves and he points out that all these forces that transmit through the action of undulating fields have common properties. He is explicitly NOT saying that EM waves cause gravity waves, far less the curving of space time that gravity is expressed as doing in the general theory.

Indeed he makes this explicit in his final paragraph:

"Of course, this investigation does not explain the cause of gravity"

[/b][/i]
compare this to YOUR initial statement

"Whittaker.... demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation"

Whittaker's final paragraph continues

"all that is done is to show that in order to account for the propogation across space of forces which vary as the inverse square of the distance, we have only to suppose that the medium is capable of transmitting, with a definite though large velocity, simple periodic undulatory disturbances, similar to those whose propagation by the medium constitutes, according to the electromagnetic theory, the transmission of light."

The fact that you include the long and complex mathematics seems in this context somewhat suspicious. Anyone without a serious background in Physics would be immediately put off, indeed unless you read very carefully the references to 'forces' throughout could have you believing that the EM fields are producing 'gravitational' forces since that is how the context of this thread was constructed. Your appear to be using this very interesting (and it seems underrated) paper by a Physicist who should be more celebrated as propaganda. You have cut and pasted the very clear context of his conclusion in a way that suggests an entirely new formulation of EM and gravitational theory but this is NOT what the paper states and Whittaker himself is at pains to say so.

If this is what you are doing then you are a dangerous enemy of reason and science. The truth is a fragile commodity and anyone with a higher understanding of science and the language used to explain bears an important responsibility to truthfully represent the science. It can be hard when the science is new and disputed but you are atempting to confuse people with theories that have long been established and which stand up to scrutiny. That is not to say useful Scientists and their interpretations dont sometimes get lost. Perhaps this method of formulating Force fields deserves reworked but all it has done here is create an enormous smoke screen if unpenetrable logic that most will turn off from.

Remember, my original point was that planets cannot suddenlt enter into orbits of different radii without a massive exchange of energy. To try to obscure that basic and undeniable logic with some nonsense about 'alternative matter' etc is bogus bullshit. What is your ultimate goal? Why bother with this? It is not helpful and your intellect and talents would be best used in a more truthful and honest manner.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 22, 2018, 08:43:17 PM »

wow....that is a veritable braindump of huge proportions.....upon initial inspection it certainly is very, very, very complex reading. I will persist but you will have to forgive that I cannot digest that much information in one night while the world cup is on.

a few things do concern me however........

1. The first paper by Whittaker appears to be a reformulation of Maxwell's equations but I am struggling to see anywhere that explicitly concludes that both EM AND gravitational waves can be reformulated into two scalar potential functions. If you are familiar with the paper can you isolate that portion on gravity because I can't find it. It is rather important to the context of this debate.

As such the earth shattering claim that Whittaker managed the 'unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY' seems premature. If he had you would imagine scientists to this day would be pouring over his writings trying to make a name for themselves by demonstrating the effect. As I have said many times, real science involves REPRODUCABILITY. Why has this feat never been practically reproduced? Afterall, you are aware of it, I am aware of it and there seem to be lots of Physics discussion boards where Whittaker's work is discussed. He is a credible scientist, that doesn't mean he formulated an Electro-gravitational theory. One might imagine that given that unification of the forces is the holy grail of Physics that we Whittaker might have more heat on him?? Maybe?

2. The second link appears to overturn the famous Michelson-Morley experiment which proved there was no ether. Again, the devices needed repeat such experiments exist in relative abundance these days and they are far more precise. Why are there no scientists claiming the scalp of M-M and raising a clamour for the revision of Special relativity which certainly could not hold if the speed of light was affected by its passage through the ether. Indeed the LIGO experiment that searches fro gravitational waves is essentially doing M-M experiment day in day out and its accuracy is several orders of magnitude above that of the original experiment, such that the Earth's movement during a few minutes would be enough to generate easily measured changes. No such anomalies have ever been reported. Care to comment?

3. On a more superficial level the second paper was published in a non-mainstream publication known for 'alternative science' that debunks among other theories relativity, big bang, plate tech tonics.  Now these theories could be wrong, but if so, why are scientists not piling in to debunk them. Scientists LOVE doing that sort of thing. It gets them off!!!! In addition, the abstract does not instill confidence when it is comprehensively full of meaningless technobabble, e.g. " demonstrated a metal-reflectable solar-modulated energy affecting the physical chemistry of water, chemical reactions and radioactive decay rates, correlated to Earth's spiral-form motion through cosmic space".....wtf?!!

And how about "Miller's computed axis of Earth's net motion of ether-drift is in close agreement with findings from diverse disciplines,
including from biology and physics". Diverse disciplines oooohh Jeez this is beginning to sound like a high school essay where the pupil needs to pad so reaches for the thesaurus. I am not filled with confidence.

Look, on the evidence of these first two links what you have furnished is a cornucopia of esoteric articles, some bona fide, some questionable but given that they attempt to overturn some of the most well established theories in the world they need to be repeatable. And thus my final point, the Ether paper (link 2) goes into lots of digressive detail on 'Reich’s Dynamic Ether-Like Orgone' but has zero detail regarding the apparatus and its setup.

Can you even begin to explain what the significance of an Ether like Orgone is? I'll warrant that very few people give you much comeback when you fire the mother-load of 'Science' their way. However, there is data therein and I asked for data. Just be advised, I have an expectation that you understand the stuff you sent to a reasonable degree otherwise how could you cite it with confidence. I will admit my complex number theory might not be what it once was. But I know technobabble when I read it, and that second abstract was a veritable study in it!

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 22, 2018, 03:52:06 PM »

Look, if you really want to get into it we would have to move to Einstein's model of space-time. I figured it would be better to keep it simple.

Semantics aside, how can UA account for the varying values of g across the Earth while it is possible to find values for g at equal altitudes that differ. The theory you lay out cannot account for such measurements. That is a significant problem fro the theory. That is where we should keep our attention.

Since space-time came up though. UA makes no prediction of gravitational waves. Einsteins general theory makes no mention of UA. They can't both be right. Indeed, the presence of UA suggests another new gravitational force must be incorporated into the universe. If it is a gravitational force (between masses) then Einsteins theory is either wrong or deficient. Good luck trying to argue that! Especially given the recent detection of gravitational waves. Or is that all a big conspiracy as well?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 22, 2018, 01:36:35 PM »

you sure are confident about gravity without even knowing how gravity works, interesting.

the mechanics of RE Gravity are NOT known (same with CG)...unless you recently discovered how and then i will apologize to you are your forthcoming Nobel prize

Look, I am confident that the relationship known as Newton's Law of gravitation accurately describes the relationship between Force, mass and distance. All measurable properties. I have a defined relationship that can be demonstrated in the lab. I am saying that gravity (or acceleration due to gravity, yes the one causes the other) is caused by mass. What you are saying is entirely unclear. You have no defined relationship, just a slogan 'CG'.

By the way, you have the audacity to say I am not engaging with 'intellectual honesty' when you arrive entirely empty handed to the debate with some lame notion of CG being a bit like Newtonian gravity but pointing the other way....give me an actual break!!!

as far as position of stars affecting the values???  seriously, you are really just trying to find anything to argue on when nothing is there.  do you really think there is variability in the distribution of starts to affect the values???  look up in the sky next time its dark, stars are pretty consistently spread accross the sky

This statement shows that you do not understand the scientific method. It is simply not adequate to say the stars have a significant affect on objects on Earth and yet not explain exactly what properties of the stars cause the affect while also saying there is no point in measuring said effect. What kind of intellectual honesty is that? A scientist would say, 'It is proposed that the stars effect a force on objects on Earth, let us measure these forces under differing circumstances'.

For example, If, as you say, the sky is homogenous then the main factor influencing CG will be the proximity to the stars.

CG bases it as distance from the stars.  and the same results.  sea level = 1g, higher elevations <1g. 

Why then can we measure differing values for g at various positions of equal altitude? That would suggest that another factor is at play. And yet CG was the only factor suggested to explain the anomaly of varying values of g and YOU claim that CG depends only on altitude.

You see the problem?

Once you propose a new hypothesis such as CG it must be tested and explained in a distinct way from the current theory/model. This is what happened with Special relativity. What you are proposing is that CG explains the variation in values of g and indeed that is what we measure when we measure g. But you cannot simply make such a claim without gathering data to support your case. Especially when the current model that encompasses fluctuations in altitude, crust density etc already agrees very closely with the Newtonian model. I think you are very confused and do not understand the most basic aspects of science. Are you a scientist? I am. I have been a qualified Engineer or Scientist in one way or another for nearly 21 years. What is your background? What actual science have you performed in a professional manner? I would respectfully suggest you back off making silly claims about my 'intellectual honesty' when you appear not to understand the difference between an opinion (CG) and a scientific law (NG).

Now, so far as me 'not understanding the mechanics of gravity'....guilty as charged. I never claimed to understand the fundamental cause of gravity. Nobody does. I merely claim to understand the relationship known as Newton's Law of Gravity and can make mathematical predictions about the properties related therein. If I have ever claimed more than this, please quote me. We await a unified theory of everything to join up the theories we have thus far.

Now I am trying to keep this thread about the science. I think anyone reading these threads who understands logic and how it pertains to science will see that. You appear to have no background in Science and little to no understanding of the scientific method. If you did you would understand the criticisms I have made above (and in previous posts). If my posts 'confuse' you (or others) might I suggest it is because you do not fully get the complexity of science needed to explain and justify a proper valid theory.

As they say, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Proper, valid scientific theories are much rarer and must be defended against all who would attempt to misuse or misrepresent them. That is why I am on the forum. That is why I fundamentally disagree with your points.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 22, 2018, 11:21:07 AM »

Of course we have direct measurement.  The accelleration (undistinguishable from gravity) is more at sea level than higher up on mountains.  This is a fact and observed many times.

As I already stated, this is a function of the inverse square law. The force of attraction reduces as the square of the distance. This is Newtonian gravitation and has been measured. The size of the reduction agrees with the formula.

You are proposing the reason is Celestial gravitation without showing measurements or observation of this affect. To cite 'observed' you need an independant demonstration similar to the Schiehallion experiment for Newtonian gravitation. Note, Celestial gravitation must be substantial if it is affecting the result for gravity on Earth, so show me the data!

Not that it is my job to design an experiment to furnish data but one might start by setting up measurement stations in different countries where fluctuations are observed. One might then study the orientation of the stellar objects above and calculate the mean distance to the nearest and thus most influential (assuming CG proposes a link with distance). As the stars move in the sky one could plot the relationship between mean distance and gravity on Earth. If the stars are the source one might also consider other features such as mass.....hmmm this is beginning to sound familiar. If a relationship exists (i.e. straight line through the origin of a graph) bingo!

Now such a theory would also have to explain why the gravity at a particular location DOESN'T CHANGE while the configuration of stars above does, since that IS what we would see. Curious that, isn't it. How could one explain such an anomaly? The theory you propose does not stand up to the barest scrutiny. It is insulting that so little effort is put in and yet you make your statements with such conviction.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 22, 2018, 10:55:47 AM »

sandokhan was nice enough to provide you with a lengthy response and reference material via links.  you posted a response 12 minutes after he posted...so you obviously took no time to read the material.

Yes, but Sandokhan also said

The colour of light a star emits is related to its temperature.

This is an unproven hypothesis.

The colour of light a star emits is related to the density of ether, not to the temperature.

Time and time again FE theorists quote unsubstantiated theories WITH NO DATA to back them up while well established theories with endless mountains of data (all consistent) are discounted. I have no idea how Sandokhan is able to assert that Blackbody radiation does not exist while the 'Ether' does. We absolutely CAN say that the Suns corona exceeds 1 million degrees because we can measure it with a method that can be demonstrated and corroborated in countless independent contexts. Whereas the 'Ether' has never been detected and has no data to support its existence. If I am mistaken, please link to some data.

The way that FE theory is argued is more akin to religious people quoting the bible. The bible makes baseless assertions that cant be tested or repeated. The example we have here is exactly similar.

Why should I spend my time reading spurious articles about a method which cannot be used to explain the temperature of the corona. It is moot point, we can directly measure the temperature of the Corona so a method obviously DOES exist to cause the temperature we see.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Sunset

« on: June 22, 2018, 10:19:27 AM »

We need to clarify something very important.

Glare and fuzziness around a light source (including objects reflecting light) is an effect caused by random dispersion of light via scattering effects. This is random and can have no relationship to magnification.

Magnification occurs when an observer is placed at the focal point beyond a lens or some other magnifying object. As such it is a specific effect that is highly dependant on the position of source, magnifying object (lens) and observer. If either of these is moved the first thing that is observed is a blurring and distortion of the image. We NEVER see this with the sun. The Sun is always sharp and well defined on a clear day.

To suggest that some optical effect produced by the atmosphere could emulate the magnification phenomena is not credible. The atmosphere by its very nature is random, volatile and TOTALLY unable to produce consistent magnification effects. There is no part of the proposed theory that could come close to being considered. As with virtually every area of FE theory there is no data, no alternative formula and even the basic premise makes no sense. It is simply a idea plucked straight out of thin air (literally in this case). It is infuriating to consider the work and dedication that real scientists put in to establish every inch of the theories they propose. Some take decades to prove only for a an 'alternative' to pop up who's primary sources relate to a single book written by a single scientist in the 19th century while yet more parts of the theory have no background at all. What hubris to imagine that these ideas have equal status in the marketplace of ideas.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 22, 2018, 09:50:46 AM »

empirical evidence proves that gravity as modern science presents it cannot exist

This is simply a lie. I am sorry but there are few theories that exist that have been as thoroughly tested and confirmed as Newton's Law of gravitation. It is a force of attraction that exists between all MASS. The attraction increases as the product of the two masses and reduces as the square of the distance between them. As such this theory predicts that the effect of stars on the Earth is virtually zero whereas the effect of local altitude fluctuations on Earth are significant and match the predictions made by the theory. The UA has no formula and no data and should not even be considered as it simply cannot be considered alongside Newton's law of gravitation. Science has a theory that works in every situation and UA has no theory, no data and absolutely no place in the debate until its absolutely contrary assertions have some evidence behind them. FE and UA theory are together presented in a scientific light. As such they must obey the rules of the scientific method. The price of admission is hard data.

It seems to me that what FE attempts to make the theories fit the conclusion, but without data. What RE theory did was analyse data in order to form theories and finally a conclusion. That is the correct way round.

not that big of leap that CG wouldn't be fully understood either, but it is observed

BUT IT ISN'T OBSERVED....IT JUST ISN'T! As evidenced by the TOTAL LACK OF DATA.

Whereas I, or indeed any careful person with some scientific skills CAN ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF GRAVITATION.

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

The famous Schiehallion experiment involved measuring the deviation of a plumb line placed next to the mountain Schiehallion in Perthshire (I used to live there). The deviation gives an instant indication of the evident force between masses and the numbers are in line with the aforementioned equation. Only when you can do such a direct observational experiment can you say something is 'observed'.

The reason gravity is less on top of a mountain is for this reason, not Celestial Gravitation which is yet to be detected and has no mechanism to explain it.

Guys, while you refuse to use the scientific method in your arguments you cannot co-opt its language, form and structure as if it is your own. I have comprehensively shown that there is no case to answer in this matter and as such will not be returning to this thread. I am very willing to engage in 'debate' but only when the most basic norms of establishing fact and fiction are adhered to. I engage in these debates so that the baseless assertions of FE theory are challenged in a manner that illustrates the difference between the scientific method and pure speculation. I do not say 'pure speculation' as an insult. I say it as an absolute fact in the case of celestial gravitation as pertains to UA. Without data or direct measurement that is all you have.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 21, 2018, 03:14:55 PM »

The studies you can't find on celestial gravitation? There aren't any. For all intents and purposes it's an answer given to explain the phenomena that has been observed.

Well my point is that when people who have an exhaustively tested theory that matches all observations and experimental data. That IS a theory.
To come along and attempt to overthrow such a theory one might expect an even bigger body of evidence with even greater statistical certainty around the data. To NOT EVEN HAVE DATA in a foundational part of the theory is unforgivable. Until UA can be argued with ANY DATA at all it should remain a belief, a posit a musing. It should not have its own personal place on a preeminent FE website who's function is to try an educate people that the RE model is wrong. The two theories are not even in the same ballpark.

Just a question, but why do you DISbelieve the data and the evidence that DOES exist for the RE model?

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 21, 2018, 03:03:09 PM »

Look, the measurement of the temperature of objects, including gas atmospheres around stars is studied at Higher level Physics and the theory (Blackbody radiation) is used by astronomers around the world to make direct measurements of the corona. Any amateur Astronomer with a telescope, a spectrophotometer and one of these tables (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/B/Blackbody+Radiation ) can directly measure the temperature of the Corona and confirm that its temperature is above 1 000 000 degrees. Stop spamming me with ancient links and stop over complicating this. Simple theories do work, and the theory of Blackbody radiation is ANOTHER EXHAUSTIVELY TESTED AND WIDELY REPORTED THEORY for measuring the temperature of anything that emits light. Every astronomer in the world would cite it as one of the greatest tools they have for remote sensing of stars.

The colour of light a star emits is related to its temperature. This means that we can determine the effective temperature of the Sun by measuring the amount of light it emits at each wavelength and comparing the resulting spectrum we see to models. Another approach is to record which absorption lines are present in the solar spectrum and determine their strengths; both the elements present and their strengths are sensitive to temperature. These different methods all show that the effective temperature of the Sun’s surface is around 5,800 kelvins (9,980 degrees Fahrenheit [5,520 degrees Celsius]).

So although the Sun’s corona at a temperature of over a million kelvins (1,800,000 F [1,000,000 C]) is significantly hotter than the photosphere, the vast majority of the light we use to measure the effective temperature of the Sun comes from its photosphere. The contribution from the corona is minuscule in comparison.

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/01/measuring-the-suns-temperature

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 21, 2018, 02:50:41 PM »

Look, your link sent me to a single sentence! I'm not being funny but anyone can make up words and claim that they represent an actual phenomena. Without any actual data this statement is simply that, a statement, made by a person (unknown). Do you not see that?

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

Again, we must establish some boundaries for what is allowed into the debate. Otherwise the debate becomes meaningless. If the wiki is to be valued it must link to the data and the studies that establish the theory, otherwise YOU must do that here. Otherwise it is not a theory, it is a 'Hypothesis'. There is a huge difference.

It is not reasonable to expect someone to go looking for a phenomena so unusual and without reference points that it only appears on other flat earth boards. That is a red flag right there. If the wiki cannot elaborate in any way how celestial gravity works in comparison to Newtonian celestial gravity then why should any reader expect that the information exists elsewhere. Please can we stick to tested provable Physics with up to date data to back it up.

Curious squirrel. I have searched the internet, I am 5 pages into Google and can't find a single reference to a study of celestial gravitation. Could whoever wrote the wiki (the gatekeeper of such information?) please update the wiki with some links. Otherwise I respectfully suggest that this case is closed wrt UA. 

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. How does the FE Sun-Earth orbital model satisfy conservation of Energy?

« on: June 21, 2018, 02:32:21 PM »

I say this with as much respect as I can muster but FE theory really needs to be consistent with modern science (after 19th century), modern theories and modern measurement techniques. The anomaly you are quoting has been soundly researched in light of new information regarding the temperature of the Corona. In 1869 our knowledge of the Sun and its atmosphere was rudimentary to say the least. We now know that the temperature of the Corona can get up as high as several million degrees. More than hot enough to cause the extreme ionising of Iron, Calcium and Nickel that would explain the phenomena.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/nuclear-physics

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qcorona.html

Although the internal structure of the solar core is hidden from direct observations, one may conclude, from using various models, that the maximum temperature inside of our star is about 16 million degrees (Celsius). The photosphere - the visible surface of the Sun - has a temperature of about 6000 degrees C. However, the temperature increases very steeply from 6000 degrees to a few million degrees in the corona, in the region 500 kilometers above the photosphere.

Now all that aside I fail to see how the presence of some 'other' type of matter would produce a measurable effect when so much normal matter is about. You are turning over the entire canon of classical Physics, Newton's Laws, the whole lot in favour of the mere mention of the possibility of another unusual type of matter. The scientific method demands a far more rigorous proof and acceptance before if is used to inform the models that currently exist. Otherwise every anomalous piece of data could be thrown into the mix and nothing would ever be established.

Quoting preminent scientists and Naubel laureates is a cute ploy but even the great Einstein and countless of his peers got things wrong along the way. Critically, they accepted the fact and went back to the drawing board. No matter what the sacrifice was in terms of years of effort and reputation. That is good science.