Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #60 on: April 14, 2021, 09:06:41 PM »
I've explained why these things would work without relativity quite clearly. You can stop pretending to be confused and refer back to those posts.

Relativity is not needed for Time Dilation. Time Dilation was predicted before the advent of relativity by physicist Joseph Larmor, showing that it does not need relativity to work. He also discovered the Lorentz transformations some years before both Lorentz and Einstein. Larmor held the Lucasian Chair, the same chair held by Isaac Newton, George Airy, and Stephen Hawking.

In fact, Lamor disagreed with Einstein's approach of taking his time dilation equations to use with "spacetime".

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

"In his book Aether and Matter (1900), [Lamor] again presented the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction (treating these as dynamic rather than kinematic effects). Larmor was opposed to the spacetime interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in special relativity because he continued to believe in an absolute aether. He was also critical of the curvature of space of general relativity, to the extent that he claimed that an absolute time was essential to astronomy (Larmor 1924, 1927)."

In the following paper physicist Joseph Levy explains how aether theory explains time dilation without spacetime:

Bio - http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Joseph_Levy

Paper - https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611077.pdf

Aether Theory Clock Retardation vs. Special Relativity Time Dilation
Joseph Levy

Abstract:

"Assuming a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies, one
can provide a rational explanation of the experimental processes affecting the
measurement of time when clocks are in motion. Contrary to special relativity,
aether theory does not assume that the time itself is affected by motion; the
reading displayed by the moving clocks results from two facts: 1/ Due to their
movement through the aether, they tick at a slower rate than in the aether frame.
2/ The usual synchronization procedures generate a synchronism discrepancy
effect. These facts give rise to an alteration of the measurement of time which, as
we shall show, exactly explains the experimental results. In particular, they
enable to solve an apparent paradox that special relativity cannot explain (see
chapter 4). When the measurement distortions are corrected, the time proves to
be the same in all co-ordinate systems moving away from one another with
rectilinear uniform motion. These considerations strongly support the existence
of a privileged aether frame. The consequences concern special relativity (SR) as
well as general relativity (GR) which is an extension of SR. We should note that
Einstein himself became conscious of the necessity of the aether from 1916, in
contrast with conventional relativity."

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your efforts. I never said it was. I said it would HAVE TO BE perfectly weight balanced. And not just on top, but the entire disk. Is it? Has the site ever addressed the topic?

It's like you're not even trying. YES, it will have level water in it, BUT most of it would be on one side of the cup. The earth equivalent of that would see the oceans spilling over one side of your "cup", ie: the "ice wall", and into space.

It sounds like you made all that up as you were typing. Congratulations you have just invented a brand new branch of geology on the fly.

If you have the crooked deck of a crooked ship and pour a bucket of sand onto the crooked deck, the peak of the sand will be pointing straight up, and not be crooked with the ship's deck.

If we have two mounds of sand on the crooked deck of a ship, and push them together, it will create a bigger mound, also pointing straight up, and not aligned with the crooked deck of the ship.

It is clear that erosion and new hill and mountain creation would cause the formations to align with the vertical and not with the slope of the surface.

Your idea of water 'falling off' assumes a lot. Since those areas are far from the Sun it would most likely freeze and create a container for itself than fall off.

Still making it up as you go along I see. What you have NOT addressed is that no such tilt exists, therefore all your examples are pointless. ALL of the earth's water would have flowed to ONE SIDE of the world (as your cup example states), and it hasn't, in case you haven't noticed.

Therefore, even weight distribution and symmetry must exist, AND UA must be acting at exactly right angles to the surface of the earth, which means that FE must include those criteria as necessary elements to maintaining the flat earth claim.

But, you've obviously never had to think of this before, so it's time to step up and invent some new laws of physics as you've done with UA and EA.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 866
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #61 on: April 14, 2021, 09:26:54 PM »
You guys are both kinda right, for all the wrong reasons.

Steve, your premise is fair, but you're assuming that surface variations in mass distributions are significant enough on the scale of the purported flat earth. Even if the flat earth disk was only one meter thicker than our deepest borehole drilled so far (~8 km), that mass of dense rock would likely be sufficient to outweigh the irregularities that arise to to mountains, valleys, ocean basins etc.


Tom  has rightly pointed this out, but is now asserting long-lasting geologic processes like mountain building and erosion account for why we see things balanced the way we do. Introducing these processes creates a host problems because they are not addressed in FET (the wiki provides no references to support the descriptions on that page, and lists a type of rock that doesnt exist).

Neither of your recent claims are based in much that is verifiable or testable.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2021, 12:18:30 AM »
You guys are both kinda right, for all the wrong reasons.

Steve, your premise is fair, but you're assuming that surface variations in mass distributions are significant enough on the scale of the purported flat earth. Even if the flat earth disk was only one meter thicker than our deepest borehole drilled so far (~8 km), that mass of dense rock would likely be sufficient to outweigh the irregularities that arise to to mountains, valleys, ocean basins etc.


Tom  has rightly pointed this out, but is now asserting long-lasting geologic processes like mountain building and erosion account for why we see things balanced the way we do. Introducing these processes creates a host problems because they are not addressed in FET (the wiki provides no references to support the descriptions on that page, and lists a type of rock that doesnt exist).

Neither of your recent claims are based in much that is verifiable or testable.

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

This places additional criteria for FEers to explain, and obviously they haven't invented any new physics yet, such as adaptive UA, to account for it (in the case of asymmetry), or explained how the world came to have perfect symmetry.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2021, 12:20:54 AM by stevecanuck »

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 866
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2021, 12:35:14 AM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2021, 02:51:32 AM »
Now we’re getting somewhere and you’ve given me something to work with other than just “no, you’re wrong”.

So what if Larmor (Kudos to you for knowing who he is.  His publicist wasn’t as good as some of the other rock star physicists working at the time) predicted time dilation before Einstein? It’s no secret that he built on the work of a lot of people who were coming up with hints and bits of pieces of what was to become SR.  The point is, Einstein is the one who made all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. That is what was so extraordinary.

You said
Quote
Relativity is not needed for Time Dilation

You’ve got the whole argument backwards. You seem to think that Einstein came up with Relativity and then used time dilation to support the theory.  That’s not what happened.  By taking those bits and pieces of time dilation, length contraction, integration of space and time, which were all ideas other people had already explored and putting them together with the equivalence principle ultimately led him to the logical conclusion that spacetime is warped and that is what causes gravity. The Theory of Relativity may not be needed for time dilation, but time dilation is evidence of relativity and spacetime warp.   If spacetime is moving at different speeds at different places, by definition it is warped.

I can understand rejecting that if you don’t accept that spacetime is an actual physical entity, but relativity demands that it is. And claiming that relativity doesn’t lead to the conclusion that spacetime is warped is a different debate than relativity is wrong because spacetime is only an abstract concept, without material existence.

You’ve made the point that effects of relativity could also exist in Newtonian space, and on one level I agree with that.  If the only space you know is Newtonian, and effects of relativity are observed, then the obvious conclusion is that they can exist in Newtonian space, even if you don’ t understand exactly how.

But on a more fundamental level, it is not true. Newton conceived space and time as absolute, unchanging. Time  “flows equably without relation to anything external” and space “in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable”.  This is obviously in direct contradiction to SR, which make space and time relative. Time doesn’t flow equably without relation to anything external.  If flows relative to motion. And space is not always similar and immovable. Its dynamic, it moves and changes, it acts upon things and can be acted upon.

You can’t argue that space is absolute when it supports your position and then also argue that it is relative when it supports your position.  Either time dilation and length contraction exist (no matter who first had the idea) and spacetime is relative or they don’t exist and spacetime is absolute. Both views are supportable to different degrees, people have been debating it for millennia. But pick a lane and stay in it.

As for Levy, he makes the same stale argument that you must measure the one way speed of light in order to know if its constant. It’s hardly a novel argument. Remember when I posted the animation of the light clocks and told you to count the clicks as a round trip...this is why. To measure the speed of light in one direction, you’d need a synchronized stopwatch at each end, but relative motion affects the rate of your clocks relative to the speed of light. You can’t synchronize them without knowing the speed of light, which you can’t know without measuring. What you can do is use a single stopwatch to measure the round trip and divide by two.  That’s what Einstein did. He assumed it was the same speed both ways.

But here’s the thing...it doesn’t matter. All experiments agree with that assumption, but they also agree with the idea that the speed of light coming towards us is ten times faster than its speed going away from us. Light doesn’t have to have a constant speed in all directions, it just has to have a constant “average” round-trip speed. Relativity still holds if the speed of light is anisotropic.  There’s actually a train of thought that the speed of light isn’t constant, but that time and space contract and expand in such a way that we will always perceive and measure it to be c.  If you think about it, it makes sense.  If speed is always measured the same, but time and space are not, then its not a big leap to conclude that spacetime adjusts itself in such a way that speed will always be measured the same.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2021, 09:41:58 AM by fisherman »

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2021, 03:56:59 AM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #66 on: April 15, 2021, 05:08:37 AM »
Quote
For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

It gets even more complicated when you consider that the motion of an object in constant proper acceleration at relativistic speeds is hyperbolic.  Makes that whole 90° to the direction of the pushing force even more problematic.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #67 on: April 15, 2021, 10:49:01 AM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #68 on: April 15, 2021, 02:38:16 PM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2021, 03:27:06 PM by stevecanuck »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #69 on: April 15, 2021, 03:33:36 PM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?
Forces are differentiated in many types of situations. You do know this, correct?

I do not think this needs to be reiterated when it is undeniable.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #70 on: April 15, 2021, 04:21:14 PM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?
Forces are differentiated in many types of situations. You do know this, correct?

I do not think this needs to be reiterated when it is undeniable.

So, that's a "no". Got it.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #71 on: April 15, 2021, 05:37:56 PM »
What if there is a giant rocket dead-center (shape-wise) so that no matter which way it tilts, the rocket is always pushing 'up'?

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2021, 06:35:29 AM »
What if there is a giant rocket dead-center (shape-wise) so that no matter which way it tilts, the rocket is always pushing 'up'?


It would fall if its mass is not evenly distributed. Take for example a saucer and balance it on your finger. You can easily do it because it is evenly balanced.
Add a cookie to the side of it and it will tilt or even fall.

Edited to add this: I think I misunderstood what you said. Did you mean that the "rocket" changes the direction of the force so that when it tilts it is pushed up in the new direction where the disk is facing?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2021, 08:38:36 AM by Kokorikos »

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2021, 01:18:53 PM »
Yes. This is a test to see if the FErs will listen to anything, and it is good debate practice to show all possible angles. I am genuinely interested to see how FErs and GErs alike will respond to this theory.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #74 on: April 16, 2021, 06:49:42 PM »
Yes. This is a test to see if the FErs will listen to anything, and it is good debate practice to show all possible angles. I am genuinely interested to see how FErs and GErs alike will respond to this theory.

I can answer that for you.  The FErs won't listen.

But from a GErs perspective, a flat earth moving at relativistic speeds will never be moving "straight up".  Its motion will be hyperbolic, so any accelerating force from underneath would have to be constantly shifting its trajectory to keep the surface at right angles, regardless of any imbalance of the weight above.  That means it would have to be exerting the force at different angles depending where along the hyperbola its traveling resulting in differences in the measured UA force on the surface.

This is addition to the complications created by Born Rigidty issues...but I don't want to pile on.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #75 on: April 16, 2021, 08:45:05 PM »

I can answer that for you.  The FErs won't listen.


That's not true, it is the FAITHFUL that won't listen (or rather, hear/understand)

If you have FAITH (aka belief) that the world is spherical (or flat/any shape) and "spacetime" is real, you are conditioned not to listen.  Overcoming that is not easy, and requires objective study and the interest to learn things that contradict what you were conditioned into believing by rote under the guise of education.

Repetition was used to solidify the belief, and must be used to undo it.

I recommend re-reading tom's posts in this thread without a "debunker" bias and asking questions if you don't understand (or disagree).  Try imagining that you may have been misinformed, and that other conceptions may be just as effective at describing what we observe.  In science this constantly happens; it is just a question of how long before we recognize it. Your faith will encourage you strongly not to do such things, but objective study/evaluation/science requires it.

Tom's detailed explanation is much more in depth than I would have given, and worth rereading and considering.  I would have just explained that time is complete fiction (has no reality beyond thermodynamic change, a unidirectional process), as is "spacetime". Even einstein himself began to doubt his "castle in the sky" towards the end.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2021, 08:53:29 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #76 on: April 16, 2021, 11:47:15 PM »
a flat earth moving at relativistic speeds will never be moving "straight up".  Its motion will be hyperbolic, so any accelerating force from underneath would have to be constantly shifting its trajectory to keep the surface at right angles
Nonono, the whole point of having a rocket in the center is that if the FE tilts, the rocket tilts with it. Of course, there is still the notion of fuel (fusion might be viable, as it wasn't made by humans), along with the fact that it has never been detected, ever, in the history of humans.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2021, 05:38:56 AM »
Quote
Nonono, the whole point of having a rocket in the center is that if the FE tilts, the rocket tilts with it. Of course, there is still the notion of fuel (fusion might be viable, as it wasn't made by humans), along with the fact that it has never been detected, ever, in the history of humans.

I'm not talking about keeping it from wobbling like a dinner plate balanced on a stick.  I am talking about the UA force pushing the earth through a hyperbole, which is curved.  In order to change the earth's trajectory through the curve, the UA force has to change its trajectory and at the same shift the balance of the amount of force applied.

Think about pushing a lawnmower.  When you come to a curve, you have to change directions to maneuver the mower through the curve. And if the curve is to the right, you have to push harder on the left.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2021, 07:43:45 PM »
Try this: Put a plate on a baking soda + vinegar rocket. Place a bowl on the plate. The plate is our FE, the bowl is our dome, and the rocket is my proposed rocket. Trigger the rocket, and tell me if, for an observer on the plate, they are always traveling up.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2021, 08:15:14 PM »
Try this: Put a plate on a baking soda + vinegar rocket. Place a bowl on the plate. The plate is our FE, the bowl is our dome, and the rocket is my proposed rocket. Trigger the rocket, and tell me if, for an observer on the plate, they are always traveling up.

Your proposed rocket isn't constantly accelerating at relativistic speeds.  An earth that has been accelerating for any extended amount of time at 9.82m/s2 would be, and the path of its motion would be a hyperbole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)

The way I understand (if I am not understanding it correctly, let me know) your model wouldn't work under UA anyway.  Even if such a rocket were tilting with the earth all that would accomplish is pushing the earth at some angle different than 90 degrees.  If the rocket is pushing the earth at a 60 angle, the surface would moving at a 60 angle and the UA version of the normal force that keeps everything pinned to the surface of the earth wouldn't be equally distributed across the whole surface.  That can only happen if the surface stays at 90 degree angle.

In addition, there are complications with rigidity.  The link below explains it better than I can, but the tl;dr is that a rigid body moving with a constant proper acceleration at relativistic speeds will deform because not all parts of the body can move at the same speed.  In order to prevent that, a different amount of force must be applied to different areas, which again would result in an unequal UA force experienced on the surface.  The bottom line is that the whole concept of a flat earth accelerating straight up for any amount of extended time is such an oversimplification of all the things that need to be taken into account, its absurd.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3899.pdf
« Last Edit: April 17, 2021, 08:37:23 PM by fisherman »