The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: zombiemaster22 on June 07, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
-
i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down. but why in zero g planes does everything pull into a natural sphere, what would cause this phenomenon, clearly density cannot explain the natural pulling of matter into spherical objects?, also when water falls like raindrops they are spherical for a short time, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynk4vJa-VaQ
in conclusion how do you explain spherical shaping of water when falling, and when in zero gravity? thank you.
-
i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down.
Practically nobody here subscribes to the view that density is responsible for keeping us down. It's a deeply flawed model with no future.
Please start off by reading the FAQ, and move from there. We can't help you justify the beliefs of those we think are wrong.
-
i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down.
Practically nobody here subscribes to the view that density is responsible for keeping us down. It's a deeply flawed model with no future.
Please start off by reading the FAQ, and move from there. We can't help you justify the beliefs of those we think are wrong.
I just read the faq and it says the universe is accelerating upwards at a constant rate, but my question still stands, me knowing whether or not the universe is accelerating upwards in your theory doesn't explain at all my question, so i ask again in a different manner, how do you explain how water forms into natural spheres in zero-g environments and when falling down like rain.
-
how do you explain how water forms into natural spheres in zero-g environments and when falling down like rain.
That would be due to gravitation.
-
What is the difference between gravity and gravitation if any? how do you measure "gravitation"? is there any experiment that can prove such "gravitation."
-
i am a flat earther and i can live with density being responsible for keeping us down.
Of course density is an important concept to understand when speaking about gravity and its effects, but density in itself doesn't explain anything. It is just an attribute of a substance: mass relative to volume.
Why do you think more dense things go down and less dense things go up? What is the force that makes them to?
Practically nobody here subscribes to the view that density is responsible for keeping us down. It's a deeply flawed model with no future.
Apparently there is not just one "flat earth" theory, but several ones competing with each other. Honestly, I don't see what would make one better than any other.
-
What is the difference between gravity and gravitation if any?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-gravity-and-gravitational-force
-
In both RET and FET, raindrops form spheres (well, roughly) because of surface tension - it has nothing to do with gravity. In RET, the gravity exerted by a raindrop is vastly too weak to have any effect on anything. Surface tension is a force that's stronger than gravity over very small objects - but vastly weaker over large objects.
Raindrops are spherical when they move slowly - but when they pick up speed in air - they are gradually distorted into other shapes by aerodynamic drag.
So this argument has no bearing on whether FET or RET are true - the answer is exactly the same.
The answer is also the same whether there is true gravity (per Isaac Newton) on an infinitely large flat earth - or whether there is universal acceleration (per the Wiki).
-
i thank you all for explaining this to me, moving on from surface tension which requires gravitation,can we not rule out gravitation from flat earth theory by some sort of experiment on earth? if we say gravity is weaker than people are saying can we not do an experiment and see if gravity is what the status qou says it is?
-
i thank you all for explaining this to me, moving on from surface tension which requires gravitation,can we not rule out gravitation from flat earth theory by some sort of experiment on earth? if we say gravity is weaker than people are saying can we not do an experiment and see if gravity is what the status qou says it is?
Einstein's GENERAL theory of relativity says that there is no experiment that can distinguish between uniform acceleration and uniform gravitation. So if the FE community want to say that there is uniform acceleration - rather than uniform gravitation - that doesn't change the results of any experiments.
The problem for FET is that gravity isn't uniform...things weigh different amounts in different places - and that can't be explained by acceleration without some parts of the Earth accelerating faster than others...with obvious unfortunate consequences. So universal acceleration alone can't explain all of the facts that are plainly out there.
-
The problem for FET is that gravity isn't uniform...things weigh different amounts in different places - and that can't be explained by acceleration without some parts of the Earth accelerating faster than others...with obvious unfortunate consequences. So universal acceleration alone can't explain all of the facts that are plainly out there.
Which is precisely how we know gravitation is present on FET. Why are you insistent on attacking strawmen?
-
In both RET and FET, raindrops form spheres (well, roughly) because of surface tension - it has nothing to do with gravity. In RET, the gravity exerted by a raindrop is vastly too weak to have any effect on anything. Surface tension is a force that's stronger than gravity over very small objects - but vastly weaker over large objects.
Raindrops are spherical when they move slowly - but when they pick up speed in air - they are gradually distorted into other shapes by aerodynamic drag.
So this argument has no bearing on whether FET or RET are true - the answer is exactly the same.
The answer is also the same whether there is true gravity (per Isaac Newton) on an infinitely large flat earth - or whether there is universal acceleration (per the Wiki).
Just to make his point perfectly clear. Hydrogen bonding will, in fact, make a semi-sphere of water even when it is resting on a nonporous substance. AKA HPL laminate on most counter tops. That sphere shape of water is caused by the surface tension which is the result of all those hydrogen bonds present in water.
-
In both RET and FET, raindrops form spheres (well, roughly) because of surface tension - it has nothing to do with gravity. In RET, the gravity exerted by a raindrop is vastly too weak to have any effect on anything. Surface tension is a force that's stronger than gravity over very small objects - but vastly weaker over large objects.
Raindrops are spherical when they move slowly - but when they pick up speed in air - they are gradually distorted into other shapes by aerodynamic drag.
So this argument has no bearing on whether FET or RET are true - the answer is exactly the same.
The answer is also the same whether there is true gravity (per Isaac Newton) on an infinitely large flat earth - or whether there is universal acceleration (per the Wiki).
Just to make his point perfectly clear. Hydrogen bonding will, in fact, make a semi-sphere of water even when it is resting on a nonporous substance. AKA HPL laminate on most counter tops. That sphere shape of water is caused by the surface tension which is the result of all those hydrogen bonds present in water.
Yep - exactly. It's even more obvious with materials like mercury which forms beautiful little almost-spheres on almost any surface. But for 100% sure it's not gravity - that's not remotely strong enough to do that - and if it was, it would attract other small objects to attach to the droplet from some distance away - and it doesn't.
-
There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.
-
There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.
Sure there is. Of course the most obvious thing is the mass of ourselves and anything around us seemingly being attracted to the mass of the earth.
Also, the apparent movement of the sun, moon and other planets, and, in recent times, satellites.
-
There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.
Sure there is. Of course the most obvious thing is the mass of ourselves and anything around us seemingly being attracted to the mass of the earth.
Also, the apparent movement of the sun, moon and other planets, and, in recent times, satellites.
The problem that TheTruthIsThere is asking is WHY mass attracts other mass...it's true that RE physics doesn't know the reason for it - but that's not a reason to reject that theory.
After all - FE physics can't explain WHY the earth is accelerating upwards - or WHY the planets, sun, moon and "shadow object" do the complicated dance that they are claimed to do. FET is no better at answering these "WHY?" questions than RET is able to explain why two masses attract each other.
The difference is that in RET, one single theory of gravity explains HOW the motion of all of the stars, moon, planets, meteors and comets happens - as well as explaining the shapes of those things, how they formed in the first place - and why there are eclipses and why there are a phases of the moon. ALL of those things can be explained by one single, simple equation: F=G x m1 x m2 / ( r x r ). All of those complicated explanations in FET (or non-explanations)...are all neatly solved with one very simple equation and one very simple (albeit unexplained) fact.
The ability to predict things is the most beautiful thing about RET physics. We see from the theory of gravitation that there ought to be black holes - we can calculate what happens if two black holes might collide and how insanely powerful the gravitational wave would be - and how long it would take to reach Earth. We can build a an actual machine that detects gravitational waves...and the results it produces are a perfect and beautiful match for what we predicted...then we can build a second one and figure out where these black holes are.
All of that comes from that one single equation...it's a thing of beauty.
-
There is absolutely no reason what so ever to explain why mass should be inherently attracted to all other mass in the universe.
Sure there is. Of course the most obvious thing is the mass of ourselves and anything around us seemingly being attracted to the mass of the earth.
Also, the apparent movement of the sun, moon and other planets, and, in recent times, satellites.
The problem that TheTruthIsThere is asking is WHY mass attracts other mass...it's true that RE physics doesn't know the reason for it - but that's not a reason to reject that theory.
After all - FE physics can't explain WHY the earth is accelerating upwards - or WHY the planets, sun, moon and "shadow object" do the complicated dance that they are claimed to do. FET is no better at answering these "WHY?" questions than RET is able to explain why two masses attract each other.
The difference is that in RET, one single theory of gravity explains HOW the motion of all of the stars, moon, planets, meteors and comets happens - as well as explaining the shapes of those things, how they formed in the first place - and why there are eclipses and why there are a phases of the moon. ALL of those things can be explained by one single, simple equation: F=G x m1 x m2 / ( r x r ). All of those complicated explanations in FET (or non-explanations)...are all neatly solved with one very simple equation and one very simple (albeit unexplained) fact.
The ability to predict things is the most beautiful thing about RET physics. We see from the theory of gravitation that there ought to be black holes - we can calculate what happens if two black holes might collide and how insanely powerful the gravitational wave would be - and how long it would take to reach Earth. We can build a an actual machine that detects gravitational waves...and the results it produces are a perfect and beautiful match for what we predicted...then we can build a second one and figure out where these black holes are.
All of that comes from that one single equation...it's a thing of beauty.
Incorrect. Science does have an explanation for how and why gravity works the way it does. See: bending of space time.
-
Incorrect. Science does have an explanation for how and why gravity works the way it does. See: bending of space time.
"Magical fairies did it" is also an explanation. Science doesn't know how gravity works. There is a competing theory in quantum mechanics that the mechanism for gravity is a sub-atomic puller particle called the "graviton".
-
Incorrect. Science does have an explanation for how and why gravity works the way it does. See: bending of space time.
"Magical fairies did it" is also an explanation. Science doesn't know how gravity works. There is a competing theory in quantum mechanics that the mechanism for gravity is a sub-atomic puller particle called the "graviton".
"Science" is a method, not an organization or belief. Science is the method of experimenting and obtaining data in order to try and draw a conclusion. Any organization or belief culture can do science regardless of their belief structure. It is not something that is controlled or regulated in most cases (see: ethics).
"Gravity" is the word we use to reference the force that causes things to fall to the surface and be pulled towards the center of the globe. Whether we fully understand how it works or not is irrelevant. Whether you call it something different or not is also irrelevant. We can easily observe that it exists, and the effects it has. Gravity is a THEORY that is supported by FACTS. Gravitons are a hypothetical particle in which we have very little, if any evidence to support its existence (at this time). Even so, nothing about the hypothesis of gravitons supports the theory of a flat earth. You can go anywhere on the globe and measure the effects of gravity yourself.
Simply saying "magical fairies" is an invalid comparison. You can simply just say that, but it is not backed by any kind of real tangible, or reproducible evidence, nor is it any kind of explanation. If you could explain how they did it, you may have a point, but that can't be done since it is untrue. Much like the idea of a flat earth. There is no real valid explanation that justifies the conclusion.
-
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.
-
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.
Your response is of the logical fallacy we call circular reasoning.
You are using the internet right now on a computer (or a phone, which is an even better example), and yet you can't explain at all how it works. Yet it does. Are you trying to tell me the electronic device you are using is a scam? It doesn't exist? How am I, a person you have never physically observed before, and you, a person I have never physically observed before, able to have a conversation in which our responses are explained by cause and effect?
Not knowing how something works is not a valid argument that it doesn't exist. As I said before, you can observe the affects yourself all you want. You use the "look out the window and observe" "logic" repeatedly, yet you refuse to observe anything you feel questions your narrative to simply use the excuse that since you have not observed it, any mention of it is false.
-
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.
Your response is of the logical fallacy we call circular reasoning.
You are using the internet right now on a computer (or a phone, which is an even better example), and yet you can't explain at all how it works. Yet it does. Are you trying to tell me the electronic device you are using is a scam? It doesn't exist? How am I, a person you have never physically observed before, and you, a person I have never physically observed before, able to have a conversation in which our responses are explained by cause and effect?
Not knowing how something works is not a valid argument that it doesn't exist. As I said before, you can observe the affects yourself all you want. You use the "look out the window and observe" "logic" repeatedly, yet you refuse to observe anything you feel questions your narrative to simply use the excuse that since you have not observed it, any mention of it is false.
And your response is of the logical fallacy we call false equivalence.
Whether or not he can explain what makes his electronic device function is irrelevant. It was built by people who obviously understand it, and can tell you exactly how it functions. This is simply not the case for gravity. Do you understand the distinction? If you don't, then just ask for help and we can try to point you in the right direction. Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.
You have an account that is a few days old. So far you assert that you are just stating facts. Yet, you have not made an argument nor provided any evidence for anything. You sure seem to like firing off claims, though, and generally acting condescending and unpleasant. Yes, we get it, you don't like Flat Earth anything. You have provided nothing original and aren't even capable of having a rational discussion. You are just like the hundred, if not thousands of users we have seen pass through over the years.
-
And your response is of the logical fallacy we call false equivalence.
Can you show 2 opposing arguments I am trying to equivilate? Or did you just make that up to try and look smart in front of all of your friends?
Whether or not he can explain what makes his electronic device function is irrelevant. It was built by people who obviously understand it, and can tell you exactly how it functions. This is simply not the case for gravity. Do you understand the distinction? If you don't, then just ask for help and we can try to point you in the right direction. Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.
Whether or not they can explain exactly how gravity works, does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that the current understanding that we do have of it is invalid. The theories and evidence are gathered by people who obviously understand it and can tell you exactly what we currently know in detail, refuting all nonsense that Gravity is bullshit. Do you understand the hypocrisy in your argument? If you don't just ask and I can explain it to you in smaller words and bigger letters. maybe we should get together so we can use crayons? Would that be more suited to your abilities?
You have an account that is a few days old. So far you assert that you are just stating facts. Yet, you have not made an argument nor provided any evidence for anything. You sure seem to like firing off claims, though, and generally acting condescending and unpleasant. Yes, we get it, you don't like Flat Earth anything. You have provided nothing original and aren't even capable of having a rational discussion. You are just like the hundred, if not thousands of users we have seen pass through over the years.
How old my account is is completely irrelevant. You dismissing the information I have provided, which is the MO for all FE believers, doesn't mean I have not provided any. You just all seem to run away as soon as facts start flying around. You can observe the evidence of this yourself if you simply look at the forums and at which point you and your tin-foil hat club seem to always disappear from the conversation.
Flat earth has nothing to do with my "dislike". It is the completely arrogant, intentional bullshit that is the problem. Anyone who challenges you is being irrational. Anyone who presents facts is brainwashed. Anyone who shows a picture has faulty equipment. When presented with a situation you have no real answer for, you either disappear, or redirect the conversation into something about how the person isn't worthy of having the conversation, or you are not responding because it is irrational. In reality you are just running away because you are too weak to admit, even to yourself, that you are wrong.
It is clear you are more about taking a stand and just trying to brush the opposition of reality under the rug than you are about trying to be objective and coming to a logical observable conclusion. You are in no position to claim that anyone hasn't provided any evidence of anything. Not one thing you have said on this site that I have seen qualifies as evidence. You are a childish, arrogant hypocrite, and the sooner you learn to accept that and grow up, the better off you will be.
-
Can you show 2 opposing arguments I am trying to equivilate? Or did you just make that up to try and look smart in front of all of your friends?
Do you really not understand what a false equivalence is? Are you just trolling at this point? I guess I will bite for at least one more post. You tried to make an equivalence between Tom stating that no one knows the mechanism that makes gravity function with a claim that he doesn't know how his electronics function. Those are not equivalent, as much as you might hope them to be.
Whether or not they can explain exactly how gravity works
I suppose it is a good thing no one is asking anyone to explain "exactly" how gravity works. I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to clear up your obvious misunderstanding.
How old my account is is completely irrelevant.
False.
You dismissing the information I have provided
Also false. Have you actually read the thread?
which is the MO for all FE believers,
Citation needed...
You just all seem to run away as soon as facts start flying around.
Cool, more baseless claims. Feel free to provide evidence, unless you don't mind coming off as being ignorant. Hasn't seemed to stop you so far.
You can observe the evidence of this yourself if you simply look at the forums and at which point you and your tin-foil hat club seem to always disappear from the conversation.
I am starting to wonder if you have actually read any threads at all.
Flat earth has nothing to do with my "dislike". It is the completely arrogant, intentional bullshit that is the problem.
What is arrogant?
Anyone who challenges you is being irrational.
Ah, now you are moving on to strawmen. Nice.
Anyone who presents facts is brainwashed. Anyone who shows a picture has faulty equipment.
Feel free to keep making things up. Whatever makes you feel better.
When presented with a situation you have no real answer for, you either disappear, or redirect the conversation into something about how the person isn't worthy of having the conversation
Citation needed...
or you are not responding because it is irrational. In reality you are just running away because you are too weak to admit, even to yourself, that you are wrong.
Running away from what? Do you realize how entitled you sound. And yet, you literally have made no arguments. You cannot provide evidence, you just make claims.
It is clear you are more about taking a stand and just trying to brush the opposition of reality under the rug than you are about trying to be objective and coming to a logical observable conclusion. You are in no position to claim that anyone hasn't provided any evidence of anything. Not one thing you have said on this site that I have seen qualifies as evidence.
I can see how you might come to that conclusion given that you clearly haven't read the posts or done any research. Keep attacking that strawman, though. I won't stop you. You seem to have a victim complex, you really should work on that.
You are a childish, arrogant hypocrite, and the sooner you learn to accept that and grow up, the better off you will be.
This is what projection looks like, children. Take note, as it is very unhealthy.
If you decide you ever want to have an actual conversation, the forum will be here. If all you plan to do is complain, then I would suggest limiting your posts to the Angry Ranting forum. It was designed just for angsty round earthers such as yourself. I wish you the best, friend! :)
-
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.
We don't know the cause of gravity - but we do know it's effects, with huge precision and great confidence.
That is not a reason to dismiss it.
You mentioned the "graviton" as an alternative theory of gravitation. It really isn't that.
We know that changes in gravity ripple out through space as waves at the speed of light. We've seen them in the new gravity wave detectors as a result of very distant black hole collisions.
Because the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) all present themselves as waves yet also have particle-like properties. So light waves are the 'flip side' of the photon and carry the electromagnetic force. We know that the gluon and various bosons carry the other forces.
So we know that three out of the four fundamental forces have this "wave/particle duality" thing going for them. So it seems overwhelmingly likely that the action of the fourth force (gravity) must have a particle related to that wave...and we've given it a name "The Graviton".
However, the predicted properties of the graviton would make it almost impossible to detect. We'd need a particle accelerator (like the Large Hadron Collider) that was hundreds of thousands of miles across in order to produce enough energy to directly detect gravitons.
For that reason, we don't know for 100% sure that there are gravitons, it's very unlikely that humanity will ever be able to detect them - but at the same time, it would be quite surprising if they didn't exist.
-
Can you show 2 opposing arguments I am trying to equivilate? Or did you just make that up to try and look smart in front of all of your friends?
Do you really not understand what a false equivalence is? Are you just trolling at this point? I guess I will bite for at least one more post. You tried to make an equivalence between Tom stating that no one knows the mechanism that makes gravity function with a claim that he doesn't know how his electronics function. Those are not equivalent, as much as you might hope them to be.
Whether or not they can explain exactly how gravity works
I suppose it is a good thing no one is asking anyone to explain "exactly" how gravity works. I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to clear up your obvious misunderstanding.
How old my account is is completely irrelevant.
False.
You dismissing the information I have provided
Also false. Have you actually read the thread?
which is the MO for all FE believers,
Citation needed...
You just all seem to run away as soon as facts start flying around.
Cool, more baseless claims. Feel free to provide evidence, unless you don't mind coming off as being ignorant. Hasn't seemed to stop you so far.
You can observe the evidence of this yourself if you simply look at the forums and at which point you and your tin-foil hat club seem to always disappear from the conversation.
I am starting to wonder if you have actually read any threads at all.
Flat earth has nothing to do with my "dislike". It is the completely arrogant, intentional bullshit that is the problem.
What is arrogant?
Anyone who challenges you is being irrational.
Ah, now you are moving on to strawmen. Nice.
Anyone who presents facts is brainwashed. Anyone who shows a picture has faulty equipment.
Feel free to keep making things up. Whatever makes you feel better.
When presented with a situation you have no real answer for, you either disappear, or redirect the conversation into something about how the person isn't worthy of having the conversation
Citation needed...
or you are not responding because it is irrational. In reality you are just running away because you are too weak to admit, even to yourself, that you are wrong.
Running away from what? Do you realize how entitled you sound. And yet, you literally have made no arguments. You cannot provide evidence, you just make claims.
It is clear you are more about taking a stand and just trying to brush the opposition of reality under the rug than you are about trying to be objective and coming to a logical observable conclusion. You are in no position to claim that anyone hasn't provided any evidence of anything. Not one thing you have said on this site that I have seen qualifies as evidence.
I can see how you might come to that conclusion given that you clearly haven't read the posts or done any research. Keep attacking that strawman, though. I won't stop you. You seem to have a victim complex, you really should work on that.
You are a childish, arrogant hypocrite, and the sooner you learn to accept that and grow up, the better off you will be.
This is what projection looks like, children. Take note, as it is very unhealthy.
If you decide you ever want to have an actual conversation, the forum will be here. If all you plan to do is complain, then I would suggest limiting your posts to the Angry Ranting forum. It was designed just for angsty round earthers such as yourself. I wish you the best, friend! :)
You really are so full of yourself that you have no real idea what is going on.
It is obvious your little lectures are just a deflection to avoid the real conversation. You need citations? look at the forums. Making things up? Again, look at the forums. I have a feeling, though, that seeing the proof for yourself won't have much of an effect.
Do you really not understand what a false equivalence is?
Yes, I do. It is clear that YOU do not. Or is the official documented definition a scam and the one you feel like using is the right one?
-
You really are so full of yourself that you have no real idea what is going on.
You should probably read the parable of the pot and the kettle before you accuse someone of being full of themselves. You can't possibly lack self-awareness this severely.
It is obvious your little lectures are just a deflection to avoid the real conversation.
Ah yes, responding to your baseless claims somehow avoids talking about your baseless claims. Gotcha.
You need citations? look at the forums.
I did just that. I don't see where you have provided sources for any of your claims. Feel free to provide links to your posts that contain sources/citations and I will admit that I was wrong. Do you understand what the burden of proof is, friend?
Making things up? Again, look at the forums.
I have, and looking at the forums supports my position. Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
I have a feeling, though, that seeing the proof for yourself won't have much of an effect.
Nice assumption.
Yes, I do. It is clear that YOU do not. Or is the official documented definition a scam and the one you feel like using is the right one?
I am sorry my friend, but you are projecting again. Words have meanings. Just because you want to ignore that doesn't change the fact you are wrong. I know it can be tough sometimes, but if you need help, just ask, and I will do my best to hold your hand through explaining it. However, it is obvious you do not care about being wrong, so I imagine you will just follow this response with more baseless claims and displays of ignorance and arrogance. I wish you the best in that endeavor. Do take care.
-
OK OK. Somebody here mentioned accelerated flat earth upwards as a cause for "gravity" effect.
Then why this acceleration is not uniform on Earth surface? The earth would disintegrate many years back
Why is acceleration becoming smaller as you go higher?
What causes Sun to accelerate and not fall on the Earth?
Same for Moon.
I would add some more but let's start with these. As I know that there is no explanation that open minded can give.
-
OK OK. Somebody here mentioned accelerated flat earth upwards as a cause for "gravity" effect.
Then why this acceleration is not uniform on Earth surface? The earth would disintegrate many years back
Why is acceleration becoming smaller as you go higher?
What causes Sun to accelerate and not fall on the Earth?
Same for Moon.
I would add some more but let's start with these. As I know that there is no explanation that open minded can give.
I'd suggest you read the FAQ and maybe search the fora. I know you probably think you're the only person to bring this up but it's literally been covered dozens of times, hundreds if you go back to the old forum.
-
While we as humans do not know the cause of gravity (be it the bending of spacetime or some subatomic particle) we can clearly demonstrate extensive knowledge of how these forces work in the real world, and apply said knowledge to make accurate predictions about the world around us.
A great example would be the 2017 solar eclipse that will cross the United States next month. For years, scientists around the world have been accurately predicting the exact time and location that a solar eclipse will be visible, down to the very second. This is only possible because of our incredibly accurate modeling of orbital mechanics.
How would a zeteticist even go about predicting the exact moment an eclipse will appear? In ENaG, Rowbotham claims eclipses are caused by a shadow object that cannot be observed by humans. How do you track the movements of something that cannot be observed?
-
OK OK. Somebody here mentioned accelerated flat earth upwards as a cause for "gravity" effect.
Then why this acceleration is not uniform on Earth surface? The earth would disintegrate many years back
Why is acceleration becoming smaller as you go higher?
What causes Sun to accelerate and not fall on the Earth?
Same for Moon.
I would add some more but let's start with these. As I know that there is no explanation that open minded can give.
I'd suggest you read the FAQ and maybe search the fora. I know you probably think you're the only person to bring this up but it's literally been covered dozens of times, hundreds if you go back to the old forum.
The FAQ doesn't even attempt to address the fact that there are variations in gravitational energy that correlate with latitude and altitude. Searching through the forum yields dozens of poorly articulated (and in some cases contradictory) theories with no repeatable experiments to verify their claims.
I think you're missing the point of a forum. We are all here to have a discussion about the Earth's shape. If all of your responses boil down to "parse through a decade of former discussions to find your answer," then why participate in this discussion to begin with?
-
Blah blah blah...
This has literally been the entirety of your claims thus far. Well done.
Be honest...how much time did you spend on typing that bullshit? The only part I am having problems figuring out is if you are trying to convince other people you are not bat shit stupid, or if you are trying to convince yourself...or maybe both.
Oh good, you are projecting again.
-
Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.
Now that's a tempting offer!
Wave-duality says that for every force-carrier there is a corresponding particle. Electromagnetic waves have the photon, Strong and Weak nuclear force have the Gluon, Mass has the Higgs particle. Gravitational waves (if they exist) have the graviton. Even electrons (normally seen as a particle) have an associated wave function (see Schrodinger's equation).
In fact, there isn't really a distinction between a force as a wave or as a particle - they are merely aspects of the same exact thing that show themselves up under different experimental situations. So some experiments with light can count photons where others diffract and focus light as a wave. This duality is a hard thing to wrap our minds around - but we've seen it in enough physical situations to know that it's true.
So - for gravity, the only experiment that would reveal a "particle-like" nature would require a particle accelerator about the size of the orbit of the moon (er, sorry FE'ers...I mean "MUCH BIGGER THAN THE ICE WALL CIRCLE").
However, we don't need to do that - we only need to detect a gravity WAVE - and the existence of the dual particle can either be assumed or ignored.
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves. For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO. A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Northern_leg_of_LIGO_interferometer_on_Hanford_Reservation.JPG)
We don't need to directly detect a graviton because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.
So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave - that things as far distant as a pair of orbiting black holes in another galaxy have the power to transmit a gravity wave that can be detected here on Earth.
Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
-
We don't need to directly detect a graviton
False.
because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.
Also false.
So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave
There seems to be a pattern here.
Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
Why? You have literally done nothing to fulfill the requirement for me to do so.
-
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.
We know that gravity is a force dependent on mass, as per newtonian mechanics. This can be easily proven via the Cavendish experiment.
-
This can be easily proven via the Cavendish experiment.
In order to convince me that it applies to all kinds of mass, please prove that it applies to bananas. Since you've just said it should be easy, I'm sure this will cause you no trouble whatsoever.
-
This can be easily proven via the Cavendish experiment.
In order to convince me that it applies to all kinds of mass, please prove that it applies to bananas. Since you've just said it should be easy, I'm sure this will cause you no trouble whatsoever.
Hard to tell whether you're serious or joking. But yea, you can substitute anything with a certain mass and you would get similar results.
-
We don't need to directly detect a graviton
False.
because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.
Also false.
So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave
There seems to be a pattern here.
Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
Why? You have literally done nothing to fulfill the requirement for me to do so.
Wow! What a clever and compelling argument! Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them! I like it. Very "FE" of you.
-
Wow! What a clever and compelling argument! Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them! I like it. Very "FE" of you.
Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.
-
Wow! What a clever and compelling argument! Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them! I like it. Very "FE" of you.
Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.
But he laid out why the statements in the second half of his post were true, within the first half of his post. All you did was take the second half and declare them false, without refuting the reasoning contained within the first half. All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Thus, gravitons most likely exist as the quantum carrier of gravitational waves. While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons. But it IS a touch misleading, even if it's not patently false. More appropriately, gravitational waves give strong evidence and credence to gravitons existing. Because they would be to gravitational waves, what photons are to electromagnetic waves.
If you're going to disagree, please give reasons and not just 'nuh-uh', because that doesn't help either side see where the disagreement lies, or see where they may need to be more precise with their verbiage.
-
Wow! What a clever and compelling argument! Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them! I like it. Very "FE" of you.
Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.
You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.
At least Tom takes the time to try to explain (well, mostly).
I have done my research and there is absolutely nothing on the Wiki, in the other writings or on the forums that are searchable that explains ANY of the serious problems with FE gravity.
Not...one...single...one.
Here is the sum total of what the Wiki says:
The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.
There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.
Then there is the page: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration ...which doesn't explain how gravity decreases at the equator.
Then we have "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."
It says it explains them - but doesn't actually explain them!
If you're going to carry on claiming that there is - then either point them out - or NOBODY is going to believe you. Not just a vague "in there someplace" - point an exact post out to us...just once. You always use this hand-wavey approach and it just gets tiresome to those who come here to understand what you guys are trying to tell the world.
I don't think you have *ANYWHERE* a fully explained theory of how FE explains gravity - variable over altitude, variable by latitude and explaining the tides.
You're continual "look for it" or "false!" posts are a waste of bandwidth - the kind of thing you'd be the first to ban someone over. If you're not going to present a reference, a discussion, or an explanation of any kind - then why bother posting?
Your responses are FAR less useful than those of many people you ban. I recommend you give yourself a three day ban to consider this.
-
All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
False.
LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Maybe that is what the person I was responding to should have said, then...
While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons.
I disagree. It is quite a stretch.
-
Wow! What a clever and compelling argument! Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them! I like it. Very "FE" of you.
Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.
You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.
Couldn't agree more. What is the point of replying "FALSE" to things? There is no point. Anyone reading already knows he disagrees. The only reason a discussion forum exists, is to provide an infrastructure for...drum roll...discussion. Replying "FALSE" without further elaboration, is the opposite of discussion. It also makes him sound like a petulant child, even if he might be the most intelligent and emotionally balanced human alive.
-
All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
False.
LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Maybe that is what the person I was responding to should have said, then...
While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons.
I disagree. It is quite a stretch.
He DID say that. Explicitly in the first part of his post. But hey look, you're just going to pick mine apart too into bite size little pieces that you can state simple things about.
Why do you say it's a stretch? It's the same relationship as photons to electromagnetic waves. I think there's others, but that's the major one, as photons are on a similar scale to where we expect to find gravitions. Why do you think it's a terrible stretch to say it proves gravitons? How big of a stretch do you think it is?
You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute. The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
-
All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
False.
LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Maybe that is what the person I was responding to should have said, then...
While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons.
I disagree. It is quite a stretch.
He DID say that. Explicitly in the first part of his post. But hey look, you're just going to pick mine apart too into bite size little pieces that you can state simple things about.
Why do you say it's a stretch? It's the same relationship as photons to electromagnetic waves. I think there's others, but that's the major one, as photons are on a similar scale to where we expect to find gravitions. Why do you think it's a terrible stretch to say it proves gravitons? How big of a stretch do you think it is?
You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute. The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
The "graviton" think (which both junker and Tom Bishop have invoked in debate) is a good one for them because they can point to the name of something that science has yet to actually find.
Sadly, because they don't know enough math and science, they don't understand that "Wave/Particle Duality" means that we don't need to observe the particle directly to know that it's there AND that the wave alone is sufficient to prove whatever they think a graviton would prove. The fact of gravity wave proves that gravity works the way we think it does. F=G.m1.m2/(d.d) - that equation works very well, and even without the evidence of gravity waves, it explains 100% of the effects we see on Earth. FET's explanation for these effects (as you can see from my compendium of all of the discussions on the Wiki) merely says things like "the pull of the objects in the sky accounts for these effect"...but it doesn't. The same stars are overhead all of the earth, the sum of their attractions must result in some results - but those results can't explain a perfectly circular decrease in gravity around the equator because (for example) the density of stars over the two hemispheres is observationally identical. If their explanation were correct then the most "sky gravity" would be over the arctic - and the gravity there would be LESS than at the equator...not more.
So carping on about the lack of direct evidence for gravitons (which has precisely ZERO effect on our understanding of RET physics) is just a pathetic distraction to cover for the fact that there is no viable theory of FET "gravity" (or "universal acceleration") that comes remotely close to explaining what we actually see.
Junker is employing standard FE'er tactics of trying to distract people by picking apart a tiny, tiny nit of RET in the hope that we won't notice the gigantic CHASM of errors, inconsistencies and flat out impossibilities that make up FET.
So junker... is this just "FALSE" - or can you actually explain FET "gravity" to us without saying "Look in the Wiki"...because I just did that and produced the results for everyone to read.
If you're just going to say it's not your job to find the explanations in the forum - then you might as well stop posting here because you're adding precisely nothing to the conversation - and that's often your criteria for banning people from posting. A "self-ban" would be more honest here.
-
You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.
Incorrect. If you are struggling with basic comprehension, I don't think I can help you. But I would be happy to try.
I have done my research and there is absolutely nothing on the Wiki, in the other writings or on the forums that are searchable that explains ANY of the serious problems with FE gravity.
Not...one...single...one.
Either you are terrible at searching, or you just decided to start lying. It is fine if you don't want to make an attempt, just be honest about it.
If you're going to carry on claiming that there is - then either point them out - or NOBODY is going to believe you.
I don't care if you believe me. Once you learn how to search, you will find it for yourself. Acting like a child throwing a tantrum isn't going to encourage me to help you.
You always use this hand-wavey approach and it just gets tiresome to those who come here to understand what you guys are trying to tell the world.
I am sorry that giving direct instructions comes off as "hand-wavey" to you. You seem to think you are entitled to something. I assure you that you are not.
I don't think you have *ANYWHERE* a fully explained theory of how FE explains gravity - variable over altitude, variable by latitude and explaining the tides.
I suppose it is good I never claimed otherwise, then.
You're continual "look for it" or "false!" posts are a waste of bandwidth
I am sorry if you think facts are a waste of bandwidth.
- the kind of thing you'd be the first to ban someone over.
Literally and objectively false.
If you're not going to present a reference, a discussion, or an explanation of any kind - then why bother posting?
To point out falsehoods perpetuated by folks such as yourself. You do know that you don't even have to reply if you don't want to, right? It would be more productive than just going on a rant complaining about things that aren't happening.
Your responses are FAR less useful than those of many people you ban. I recommend you give yourself a three day ban to consider this.
If you want to continue your rant, I suggest you take it to the proper forum. Alternatively, if you have a concern, we also have a forum dedicated to that. I will ask you to refrain from derailing the thread further and if you are going to post, then stay on topic. Consider this a warning.
He DID say that.
False.
You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute.
I don't think there is much shouting going on, except for angsty round earth proponents who get upset when someone doesn't agree with them, or points out their incorrect claims.
The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
You aren't a moderator. If you are going to post, keep it on topic. If you want to complain about me, take it to the appropriate forum. Consider this a friendly warning.
Sadly, because they don't know enough math and science,
Nice projection, friend.
The fact of gravity wave proves that gravity works the way we think it does. F=G.m1.m2/(d.d) - that equation works very well, and even without the evidence of gravity waves, it explains 100% of the effects we see on Earth. FET's explanation for these effects (as you can see from my compendium of all of the discussions on the Wiki) merely says things like "the pull of the objects in the sky accounts for these effect"...but it doesn't. The same stars are overhead all of the earth, the sum of their attractions must result in some results - but those results can't explain a perfectly circular decrease in gravity around the equator because (for example) the density of stars over the two hemispheres is observationally identical. If their explanation were correct then the most "sky gravity" would be over the arctic - and the gravity there would be LESS than at the equator...not more.
So, you still have no evidence for the mechanism behind gravity. Gotcha.
So carping on about the lack of direct evidence for gravitons (which has precisely ZERO effect on our understanding of RET physics) is just a pathetic distraction to cover for the fact that there is no viable theory of FET "gravity" (or "universal acceleration") that comes remotely close to explaining what we actually see.
RE gravity is irrelevant in FE. Is there something about that which is confusing for you?
Junker is employing standard FE'er tactics of trying to distract people by picking apart a tiny, tiny nit of RET in the hope that we won't notice the gigantic CHASM of errors, inconsistencies and flat out impossibilities that make up FET.
This is a literal strawman and I would suggest you refrain from it if you want anyone take you seriously (from what I have seen so far, that isn't a concern for you so no big deal). You should stick to debating the things people actually say, not whatever you have made up in your head.
So junker... is this just "FALSE" - or can you actually explain FET "gravity" to us without saying "Look in the Wiki"...because I just did that and produced the results for everyone to read.
Sure thing. FET doesn't have gravity. If you want to understand FE's theories, I would suggest you search the fora and the wiki.
If you're just going to say it's not your job to find the explanations in the forum
Remember the earlier point about attacking a strawman? You are doing it again.
- then you might as well stop posting here because you're adding precisely nothing to the conversation - and that's often your criteria for banning people from posting. A "self-ban" would be more honest here.
Please see my earlier comment about your ranting. If you want to complain, then take it to the appropriate forum. Otherwise, please stay on topic.
-
He DID say that.
False.
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves. For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO. A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
He did say so. Right here. Direct quote from his post. That's how I knew the name to search for.
You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute.
I don't think there is much shouting going on, except for angsty round earth proponents who get upset when someone doesn't agree with them, or points out their incorrect claims.
If you're going to state something is false, it's generally an accepted rule of debate to provide a counterpoint, or explain why your opponent's claim is incorrect. I have not seen you doing this, at minimum in this thread. The idea of a debate is to spur discussion on the topic at hand. Simply stating something is false squashes said discussion. It is out of place in a debate, and it should be out of place in a debate forum. One wouldn't get up in a debate and simply state 'My opponent is incorrect' and sit back down, and expect any sort of points to be given.
This is why, in the first post, I attempted to offer an allegory of sorts on what you seemed to be doing. You are, in effect, sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating 'fake news' or 'false' in reply to points brought up, instead of giving an explanation or reasoning for why they are false, that could spur rebuttals or further discussion.
The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
You aren't a moderator. If you are going to post, keep it on topic. If you want to complain about me, take it to the appropriate forum. Consider this a friendly warning.
You're right, I'm not. Just to be certain, would the appropriate forum to express my concern that you aren't doing a good job be the 'Suggestions and Concerns' (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=4.0) forum? Would it be of use to provide links there to the posts I am speaking about?
-
He DID say that.
False.
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves. For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO. A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
He did say so. Right here. Direct quote from his post. That's how I knew the name to search for.
Funny, I do not see the term:
...gravitational waves ...
anwhere in what you quoted.
If you're going to state something is false, it's generally an accepted rule of debate to provide a counterpoint, or explain why your opponent's claim is incorrect.
To be honest, I gladly would have if that was just what the reply had asked for. Instead, it was a whiny rant about how no one ever tells him what he wants and wants me to self-ban. Sorry, I am not enabling that kind of behavior.
I have not seen you doing this, at minimum in this thread. The idea of a debate is to spur discussion on the topic at hand. Simply stating something is false squashes said discussion. It is out of place in a debate, and it should be out of place in a debate forum. One wouldn't get up in a debate and simply state 'My opponent is incorrect' and sit back down, and expect any sort of points to be given.
I tend to agree. One also wouldn't go on the aforementioned rant, and would instead maybe just ask for clarity. My posts in this thread, while brief, are at least on the topic.
This is why, in the first post, I attempted to offer an allegory of sorts on what you seemed to be doing. You are, in effect, sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating 'fake news' or 'false' in reply to points brought up, instead of giving an explanation or reasoning for why they are false, that could spur rebuttals or further discussion.
That is simply not happening. I am happy to have a discussion, but I am not going to partake in long diatribes about FES/FET, or me in general. At least not in this forum.
You're right, I'm not. Just to be certain, would the appropriate forum to express my concern that you aren't doing a good job be the 'Suggestions and Concerns' (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=4.0) forum? Would it be of use to provide links there to the posts I am speaking about?
If you have a concern, then yes, S&C is the place. If you want to rant angrily about me, I'd suggest Angry ranting. Feel free to post links to anything you have an issue with, and an admin will review and respond in time.
-
He DID say that.
False.
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves. For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO. A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
He did say so. Right here. Direct quote from his post. That's how I knew the name to search for.
Funny, I do not see the term:
...gravitational waves ...
anwhere in what you quoted.
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book? How do they differ? They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
-
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.
How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.
They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
-
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.
How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.
They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
How do you define their definition difference then? Because my search results don't turn anything up, and in fact searching gravity wave gets me the information about the LIGO team's discovery. (Granted this could be Google trying to be helpful all things considered.)
-
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.
How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.
They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
How do you define their definition difference then? Because my search results don't turn anything up, and in fact searching gravity wave gets me the information about the LIGO team's discovery. (Granted this could be Google trying to be helpful all things considered.)
Based on their actual definitions. Gravitation can certainly exist without gravity. I know people may use the terms synonymously, but they're not identical.
-
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.
How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.
They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
How do you define their definition difference then? Because my search results don't turn anything up, and in fact searching gravity wave gets me the information about the LIGO team's discovery. (Granted this could be Google trying to be helpful all things considered.)
Based on their actual definitions. Gravitation can certainly exist without gravity. I know people may use the terms synonymously, but they're not identical.
But what's the definition of gravity wave, and what's the definition of gravitational wave? Because my searches aren't turning up anything, and you can't ignore the fact that 'wave' is an important piece. Gravity and gravitational may not be equal, but adding the word wave to the end modifies things, and I would argue clarifies what is being discussed, which is part of what it does as a verb here.
-
But what's the definition of gravity wave, and what's the definition of gravitational wave? Because my searches aren't turning up anything, and you can't ignore the fact that 'wave' is an important piece. Gravity and gravitational may not be equal, but adding the word wave to the end modifies things, and I would argue clarifies what is being discussed, which is part of what it does as a verb here.
"Gravity wave" is a term used in fluid dynamics to describe...well, waves. Like ocean waves. I first came across the term when I saw a photo of patterns in high atmospheric clouds, captioned as such. I thought, "wait...what? they were just experimentally, tentatively confirmed - and now they are causing cloud formations?". Wikipedia set me straight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave).
But the term is acceptably used interchangeably with Gravitational Waves (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravity%20wave), except perhaps by pedants.
-
But what's the definition of gravity wave, and what's the definition of gravitational wave? Because my searches aren't turning up anything, and you can't ignore the fact that 'wave' is an important piece. Gravity and gravitational may not be equal, but adding the word wave to the end modifies things, and I would argue clarifies what is being discussed, which is part of what it does as a verb here.
"Gravity wave" is a term used in fluid dynamics to describe...well, waves. Like ocean waves. I first came across the term when I saw a photo of patterns in high atmospheric clouds, captioned as such. I thought, "wait...what? they were just experimentally, tentatively confirmed - and now they are causing cloud formations?". Wikipedia set me straight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave).
But the term is acceptably used interchangeably with Gravitational Waves (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravity%20wave), except perhaps by pedants.
Ah thank you! I figured Google was steering me poorly in it's attempt to give me relevant search results. XD
-
Einstein's GENERAL theory of relativity says that there is no experiment that can distinguish between uniform acceleration and uniform gravitation. So if the FE community want to say that there is uniform acceleration - rather than uniform gravitation - that doesn't change the results of any experiments.
The problem for FET is that gravity isn't uniform...things weigh different amounts in different places - and that can't be explained by acceleration without some parts of the Earth accelerating faster than others...with obvious unfortunate consequences. So universal acceleration alone can't explain all of the facts that are plainly out there.
I'm glad you added "uniform" to both acceleration and gravitation, to make it technically correct. The best kind of correct. Because in practical reality, specially on earth, you can tell. You can weigh yourself in Badwater Basin, then again at the top of Mt. Whitney. Or with experiments like this.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node87.html
In fact, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could not distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Given enough precise technology and some freedom to move.
That has been a headscratcher for me, as I grew up accepting that equality assertion. I reasoned that since they are identical, they must somehow be the same thing. At some deep fundamental level. Maybe everything is expanding at a rate proportional to it's mass. Maybe all the subatomic particles are expanding. But somehow maintaining proportional attributes, fields, etc. That could explain some things, say, the force of gravity on the Earth's surface, kind of like the UA. But I don't think that could explain the inverse square law. How would galaxies work, and the attraction between two of them. How would orbits work.
Anyway, at some point I figured that maybe they aren't the same fundamental thing. And maybe the claim that there is no experiment that can tell them apart, is flawed. Because is really no such thing as uniform gravitation. There is always a gradient. For something like the largest black hole known that has an event horizon about the equivalent of Pluto's orbit, and standing on a platform 10 times again as far, the gradient might be essentially practically immeasurable with any conceivable technology over the span of a few meters. (Given the inverse square law.) But if the distance between measurements is large enough, you'll find the gradient.
And yet, as you also pointed out, I don't think it would be possible for a gradient to form with acceleration.
Or would it? Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Not gravitation, and presumably not acceleration. We've never tried to accelerate a mountain, let alone long enough to measure G-force at top and bottom. If the velocity can only increase at on quantized planck time boundaries, and can propagate from bottom to top no faster than the speed of light light, and only in planck time increments, then the top will always be a bit behind the velocity of the bottom, thus you'd always weigh less at the top than the bottom. I know that seems illogical, but so does photons traversing the universe instantly while we see them as slow as molasses, until you understand General Relativity. Maybe there's a deeper underlying truth that unites both phenomenon.
So maybe gravitation and acceleration could be the same fundamental thing after all. Not just indistinguishable.
In other words, we just assume that UA would not produce the same weight measurments at sea level vs. mountain top. Certainly makes sense. But maybe it's not that simple, and it really would be indistinguishable. (And therefore we wouldn't need the "uniform" qualifier on gravitation and acceleration to make the equivalency still valid.)
My head hurts. I hope I didn't just give ammunition the the flat-earth UA model. Like, enough plausible-sounding babble to run with.
-
What about this, instead of gravitational force?
Velocity (Speed) is a force that would depend on the mass, matter, volume, and density of the item like a baseball. You could throw a basketball from the same spot as the baseball but because of the mass, matter, volume, and density difference of it, the Velocity speed would be much slower and the basketball would land much closer.
-
Could gravitational force just be replaced with Velocity?
Velocity (Speed) is a force that would depend on the mass, matter, volume, and density of the item like a baseball. You could throw a basketball from the same spot as the baseball but because of the mass, matter, volume, and density difference of it, the Velocity speed would be much slower and the basketball would land much closer.
-
The ability to predict things is the most beautiful thing about RET physics. We see from the theory of gravitation that there ought to be black holes - we can calculate what happens if two black holes might collide and how insanely powerful the gravitational wave would be - and how long it would take to reach Earth. We can build a an actual machine that detects gravitational waves...and the results it produces are a perfect and beautiful match for what we predicted...then we can build a second one and figure out where these black holes are.
All of that comes from that one single equation...it's a thing of beauty.
And it's a very simple, common-sense way to figure out who has things right. There are people launching satellites which you can use for watching TV. There are people who predict eclipses, predict the paths of asteroids.
One could divide these people up into two groups. There are the ones who accept the theory of Universal Gravitation, as described by Isaac Newton, and amended by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. And there are those who do not - who have an alternative view. There is no overlap between people who reject the gravitational theory, and the people actually able to make predictions about the cosmos and to launch satellites.
So there are various possibilities. Either the gravitational theory is true, and that is what all those people are using to make their predictions - or it is false, but those people are making correct predictions in spite of that, due to coincidence - or the theory is false, and they know that, and they are lying, and using the real theory and hiding their actual calculations.
-
Could gravitational force just be replaced with Velocity?
Velocity (Speed) is a force that would depend on the mass, matter, volume, and density of the item like a baseball. You could throw a basketball from the same spot as the baseball but because of the mass, matter, volume, and density difference of it, the Velocity speed would be much slower and the basketball would land much closer.
That is due to friction in the atmosphere. There is no atmosphere in space, and therefore no friction.
Unless FET is claiming that there IS some sort of resisting force in space -- in which case I would like to see the proof and the math behind it.
-
We either know the mechanism for gravity or we do not. We currently do not know the mechanism for gravity. We do not know how it works.
Yet you are willing to accept the fact that Gravity does not exist? If you guys do not know how it works, then why hate on gravity? Here's something for ya:
The best argument for a substitute for gravity is Density, BUT
The Space Power Facility at NASA Glenn Research Center's Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio, houses the world's largest vacuum chamber. It measures 100 feet in diameter and is a towering 122 feet tall. (IF you do not believe this place creates a vacuum, please go in there while they are testing it). A Bowling Ball was dropped (at the same time no less) with a feather, which by the Flat earth belief, should have fallen slower due to its smaller density. In contrast, They hit the floor at the exact same time, thus disproving that density is the cause for the speed at which object accelerate towards the global earth.
SKIP TO 2:44 FOR THE DROP (OR WATCH THE ENTIRE THING)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
Anyone please respond if you think you can. :P
-
Thanks for posting this. I'm glad to see Plum Brook has been revived and is being used. The site used to house a NASA nuclear reactor, but that has long since been decommissioned.