*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #140 on: April 22, 2021, 04:28:34 PM »

Under UA, it is true that the bottle (and the water in it) are all being accelerated while you are holding it.  But under UA, there is no force acting on the water that would account for it flowing down out of the holes while you are holding it.

In a bottle with no holes, water does not pour out because it has no path to even though it wants to.  It is contained within the bottle which is being forced upward due to the normal force being applied by a person's hand pulling up on it.  This is exactly why people don't fall out of planes.

Once holes are poked in the bottle, the water is no longer contained within the bottle.  The water stops accelerating with the bottle because it has a way to escape the confines.  It appears that it is falling out of the bottle when, in fact, it is sitting motionless in air while the bottle accelerates away from it and the earth accelerates toward it.  It's simple EP.  Cut a hole in the floor of a plane and watch what happens to folks as the try to walk over it.


The UA “pinning” force can’t account for it because that force requires actual contact with the ground. The forces working on you as you hold the bottle are different than the forces working on the bottle.  The ground is pushing you up and there is a reaction force that pins you down to the surface of the ground.  That is not the case with the bottle.  There is no reaction force because it is not touching the ground. Nothing is "pushing" the bottle that would account for why the water flows.


The "pinning" force on the bottle is the hand of the person holding it.  The bottle doesn't have to be touching the ground to be "pinned" to be accelrating along with it.  No different than when a person jumps up and grabs on to a bar. They don't fall.  Not because the ground is stopping them, but because the bar they are holding onto prevents it.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #141 on: April 22, 2021, 05:17:28 PM »
Right.

What you're suggesting, fisherman, is that if you balance the bottle on the palm of your hand then the water would flow out of the holes because your hand provides the force which the ground would were the bottle on the ground. But if you hold it anywhere else then the water wouldn't because the bottom of the bottle doesn't have that force applied.
I'm pretty sure that's not right.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #142 on: April 22, 2021, 05:49:34 PM »
Quote
What you're suggesting, fisherman, is that if you balance the bottle on the palm of your hand then the water would flow out of the holes because your hand provides the force which the ground would were the bottle on the ground. But if you hold it anywhere else then the water wouldn't because the bottom of the bottle doesn't have that force applied.
I'm pretty sure that's not right

In a UA environment if the bottom of the bottle is in contact with your hand, there is a reaction force. And in a UA environment, it would have to be the reaction force that causes the water to flow. At least that's the only force that I can think of that would cause it, but I'm open to suggestions.

In an RE environment no reaction force is necessary. The water flows because it's natural motion follows a geodisic and wherever there is hole, there is nothing to impede it.

In any event, if the water stops flowing while the bottle is in free fall it is not because of the EP.  The EP only applies to objects that are either in constant acceleration or at rest in a gravitational field..  An supported bottle that is hanging there waiting for the ground to catch up isn't in constant acceleration and a bottle that is freefall isn't at rest in a gravitational field.  The EP doesn't apply.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 05:57:45 PM by fisherman »
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #143 on: April 22, 2021, 08:05:26 PM »
wherever there is hole, there is nothing to impede it.

You've answered your own question.

The holes in the bottle do not impede the waters ability to remain in a constant location as the bottle is being forced to accelerate upward because the person holding it.  Basically, the bottle is being dragged through the water at that point.


In any event, if the water stops flowing while the bottle is in free fall it is not because of the EP.  The EP only applies to objects that are either in constant acceleration or at rest in a gravitational field..  An supported bottle that is hanging there waiting for the ground to catch up isn't in constant acceleration and a bottle that is freefall isn't at rest in a gravitational field.  The EP doesn't apply.

Perhaps relativity is more apt than EP.  The concept is the same.  There is no difference between an object accelerating down and the earth accelerating up to meet it. That's the simplest form of relativity. That is the discussion with regards to UA and the bottle.  Under UA a held bottle with holes will leak water until it is released as there is nothing to impede the water from staying still as the earth and bottle both rise around it.  When the bottle is released, now both the bottle and water are motionless as the earth rises to meet them therefore no water flows out. No different than a bottle being held under gravity.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 08:25:25 PM by WTF_Seriously »
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #144 on: April 22, 2021, 08:59:12 PM »
Quote
The holes in the bottle do not impede the waters ability to remain in a constant location as the bottle is being forced to accelerate upward because the person holding it.  Basically, the bottle is being dragged through the water at that point.

You are confused.  Holes don't impede anything's ability to remain in a constant location, they make it pretty likely that  something won't stay in a constant location.  That's why its not a good thing to have holes in your pocket.   The water isn't staying in a "constant location" while you are holding it. It is flowing from the holes in the bottle.  Some force is causing that. 

If the water stops flowing from the holes in the bottle when you let go, then that force is no longer acting on the water.

I'll say it again.  You can't argue that the water would stop flowing under both gravity and UA because of the EP.  A freely falling water bottle is neither in constant acceleration nor at rest in a gravitational field, therefore, the EP doesn't apply. It only applies when an object can be considered either under constant acceleration or at rest in a gravitational field.


« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 09:38:14 PM by fisherman »
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #145 on: April 22, 2021, 09:50:30 PM »
You are confused.  Holes don't impede anything's ability to remain in a constant location, they make it pretty likely that  something won't stay in a constant location.  That's why its not a good thing to have holes in your pocket.   The water isn't staying in a "constant location" while you are holding it. It is flowing from the holes in the bottle.

That is literally what I just said.


If the water stops flowing from the holes in the bottle when you let go, then that force is no longer acting on the water.

Nope.  It means that identical forces are acting on the bottle and the water.  In RE, gravity is still acting on both the bottle and the water equally while it is in freefall.  If it weren't, the bottle and water would cease to fall.  Gravity has caused both the water and the bottle to reach the same velocity.  Since there is no other force to expel the water from the bottle it doesn't come out.  Under UA, 'freefall' is simply the fact that the bottle and water are at rest awaiting the arrival of the earth from below.  Relativistically there is no difference between the two and they behave the same.

I'll say it again.  You can't argue that the water would stop flowing under both gravity and UA because of the EP. 

Fine, I'll stop saying it then.  Doesn't make a damn bit of difference as to how the water and bottle would work under UA.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #146 on: April 22, 2021, 11:16:40 PM »
 
Quote
In RE, gravity is still acting on both the bottle and the water equally while it is in freefall.  If it weren't, the bottle and water would cease to fall.


I would ask what part of GR don't you understand, but apparently its all of it.

There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #147 on: April 23, 2021, 01:52:57 AM »
Quote
In RE, gravity is still acting on both the bottle and the water equally while it is in freefall.  If it weren't, the bottle and water would cease to fall.


I would ask what part of GR don't you understand, but apparently its all of it.



Thank you for that.  I will admit to being old school.  The major reason I stick around here is for little nuggets like that.  So let's look at the bottle.  I'm sure I'll butcher this.

So, when held, bottle (and water if there are no holes) doesn't travel a geodesic as the force of the person stops the bottle and the impermeability of the bottle stops the water the exact same way the earth stops then from falling.  If holes are present, then there is no force due to impermeability and the water is allowed to follow the geodesic it wants while the bottle is restricted from following said geodesic so the water pours out.  If the bottle is released, then both the bottle and water are allowed to follow the same geodesic to their happy little future space time location they are seeking.   This all happens regardless gravity as gravity isn't a real force it's just that the bottle and water desire to be at a different location in space time until the earth stops their path along the geodesic. Reads an awful lot like my simple old school explanation just different word salad but if I'm misunderstanding this I welcome the correction and education.

So let's take UA under GR.  UA says earth accelerating upward.  Bottle and water without holes aren't allowed to follow their geodesic because the force of the person holding the bottle is causing them to both accelerate upwards and the impermeability of the bottle is the force that prevents the water from following its geodesic.  With holes, the force of impermeability is removed allowing the water to follow its geodesic until the time that the upwardly accelerating earth applies the force to stop it.  When the bottle is released, both water and bottle are now allow to travel the same geodesic until the upwardly accelerating earth meets them.  Again, reads an awful lot like old school physics.  Either way, the bottle and water behave exactly the same in both cases.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #148 on: April 23, 2021, 10:10:43 AM »
A freely falling water bottle is neither in constant acceleration nor at rest in a gravitational field, therefore, the EP doesn't apply.
It is under constant acceleration. If you ignore air resistance and terminal velocity, it's accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s2 towards the earth, no?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #149 on: April 23, 2021, 12:10:24 PM »
Quote
So let's take UA under GR.  UA says earth accelerating upward.  Bottle and water without holes aren't allowed to follow their geodesic because the force of the person holding the bottle is causing them to both accelerate upwards and the impermeability of the bottle is the force that prevents the water from following its geodesic.  With holes, the force of impermeability is removed allowing the water to follow its geodesic until the time that the upwardly accelerating earth applies the force to stop it.  When the bottle is released, both water and bottle are now allow to travel the same geodesic until the upwardly accelerating earth meets them.  Again, reads an awful lot like old school physics.  Either way, the bottle and water behave exactly the same in both cases.

The concept of geodisics only apply in the context of curved spaces.  FE/UA (as far as I understand) rejects the idea that spacetime is curved.

But your response is interesting in that it is exactly how FE will cherry pick certain concepts from both Newtonian physics and GR and try to marry them into one "theory".  Some things, that's not a problem.  Others end up causing obvious contradictions in their own theory.

FErs love to point out that under GR gravity is not a force. Somehow that supports FE/UA. Then they use the EP to explain how UA works as a "force".  Do you see the contradiction?

If gravity and acceleration are equivalent and gravity is not a force, then neither is acceleration.  There can't be any "force" pushing the earth.  EP doesn't make UA possible, it makes it impossible. 

There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #150 on: April 23, 2021, 01:30:54 PM »
Quote
It is under constant acceleration. If you ignore air resistance and terminal velocity, it's accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s2 towards the earth, no?

Quote
It is under constant acceleration. If you ignore air resistance and terminal velocity, it's accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s2 towards the earth, no?

Then you are conceding that the water bottle is in a gravitational field, and UA can't account for the water not  flowing.  Once you determine that the bottle is accelerating in a gravitational field, you eliminate UA as a cause.   

For the EP to apply, you need to be able to say that it could be true that the water is not flowing because of UA and it could also be true that water is not flowing because of gravity. If the bottle is at rest, you can say that.  But in order for the bottle to be at rest in a gravitational field, it has to be supported by something.

EDIT: Just in case the dots are connecting for some people...since the bottle isn't supported, it is accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and we can conclude that UA is not responsible for the water not flowing.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2021, 01:54:00 PM by fisherman »
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #151 on: April 23, 2021, 02:02:53 PM »
For the EP to apply, you need to be able to say that it could be true that the water is not flowing because of UA and it could also be true that water is not flowing because of gravity. If the bottle is at rest, you can say that.  But in order for the bottle to be at rest in a gravitational field, it has to be supported by something.

EDIT: Just in case the dots are connecting for some people...since the bottle isn't supported, it is accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and we can conclude that UA is not responsible for the water not flowing.
But if UA was a thing then when you let the bottle go no forces are acting on the bottle, yes?
If no forces are acting then the bottle is either at rest or continues at a constant velocity.
If UA was accelerating the earth upwards and you are holding the bottle and thus making the bottle accelerate up with it then at the moment you let go the bottle would continue upwards at the velocity it was going at when you released it. BUT, the earth continues to accelerate so hits the bottle.

But the point is as soon as you let go of the bottle the force you were applying on it stops, no force is acting so what would make the water leak out of the bottle?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #152 on: April 23, 2021, 02:18:45 PM »
The concept of geodisics only apply in the context of curved spaces.  FE/UA (as far as I understand) rejects the idea that spacetime is curved.

You've got to admit that on the surface curvy space time is as absurd a concept as bendy light.

FErs love to point out that under GR gravity is not a force. Somehow that supports FE/UA. Then they use the EP to explain how UA works as a "force".  Do you see the contradiction?

If gravity and acceleration are equivalent and gravity is not a force, then neither is acceleration.  There can't be any "force" pushing the earth.  EP doesn't make UA possible, it makes it impossible.

No contradiction.  Equivalence doesn't mean my force equals your force.  Equivalence means my force equals your spacetime curve.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #153 on: April 23, 2021, 03:28:41 PM »
Quote
But the point is as soon as you let go of the bottle the force you were applying on it stops, no force is acting so what would make the water leak out of the bottle?

That’s the million $ question.  What force acts on the bottle while you were holding that does not act on it when you you let go?

The only thing that comes to my mind is water pressure.  The real reason the water stops flowing when there is no gravity is because without gravity, there is no water pressure.  So I suppose you could say that without acceleration there is no water pressure.  But that’s just another way of saying the EP applies and raises a whole bunch of other questions in the process.  Not necessarily saying there aren’t answers to those questions, but its just another example of how every answer raises another question and every solution causes another problem when one tries to understand UA.

So if we go with the water pressure answer, we have to ask what caused the water pressure in the bottle when you were holding it? On RE water pressure is created because of water’s natural motion to “go down” aka “seek it’s own level”...because of gravity.  Without gravity, with UA, is water’s natural motion up?  That would solve the problem of what causes the water pressure in the bottle why you are holding it...but raises new questions about how we observe the behavior of water in any other situation.

If water’s natural motion is up, it doesn’t “seek its own level” and there goes an argument for the flat earth.

See what I mean?  It’s just one big rabbit hole.  Fers want to waive the EP flag like a magic wand and pretend that it solves all the problems with UA, but that is far from the case.
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #154 on: April 23, 2021, 03:41:42 PM »
Quote
But the point is as soon as you let go of the bottle the force you were applying on it stops, no force is acting so what would make the water leak out of the bottle?

That’s the million $ question.  What force acts on the bottle while you were holding that does not act on it when you you let go?

UA accelerates the earth upwards. That exerts a force on you. You are holding the bottle so you exert a force on it.
Isn't it that force in UA that would create the water pressure? The bottle is accelerating up, so water in it which would naturally stay at rest is pushed to the bottom of the bottle by the bottom of the bottle accelerating upwards. That's what creates the water pressure which makes the water flow out the holes. Let go of the bottle and it stops accelerating upwards because that force is removed, it keeps moving upwards at a constant velocity, the earth accelerates upwards and hits is.

Don't get me wrong, I think UA is bollox. But I don't think this is a distinguishing experiment, I think you'd get the same results in both cases. The force is either generated by a gravitational field or by the earth accelerating upwards.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #155 on: April 23, 2021, 03:49:59 PM »
Quote
You've got to admit that on the surface curvy space time is as absurd a concept as bendy light.


I disagree with that.  Curved spacetime is validated by Einstein's field equations (not to mention experimental evidence).  It works exactly as predicted by the field equations.  As far as I know, there are no equations that can be used to validate bendy light.

Quote
No contradiction.  Equivalence doesn't mean my force equals your force.  Equivalence means my force equals your spacetime curve.


What the equivalence between acceleration and gravity means is that they produce the same effect.  If the effect of acceleration is motion, then the effect of gravity is motion.  If the effect of acceleration is the warping of spacetime, then the effect of gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Your response just makes my point.  Use the Newtonian definition of force to explain why gravity is not a force in GR.

Fers claim that gravity is not a force in GR, but completely ignore the reasons why.  Accept the conclusion, but not the reasoning that leads to the conclusion.  Does that make sense to you?

Not only is that cherry picking, its wanting to eat your cherries and have them too.
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #156 on: April 23, 2021, 04:00:00 PM »
Quote
Isn't it that force in UA that would create the water pressure? The bottle is accelerating up, so water in it which would naturally stay at rest is pushed to the bottom of the bottle by the bottom of the bottle accelerating upwards

If the bottom of the bottle is accelerating up, it wouldn't push the water to the bottom of the bottle. It would push it up to the top.  Like I said, that would create water pressure and explain the results of the demonstration.

But it is also contrary to everything we observe about how water behaves in any other circumstance.  On earth we observe that water's, natural motion downward.
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #157 on: April 23, 2021, 04:09:56 PM »
If the bottom of the bottle is accelerating up, it wouldn't push the water to the bottom of the bottle. It would push it up to the top.
No it wouldn't! Why would it?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #158 on: April 23, 2021, 04:18:58 PM »
Gravity is not a force, and we've known that ever since we graduated from Newtonian physics.

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity, which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of masses moving along geodesic lines in a curved spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

There is no difference between floating in space, or falling from a building, both are inertial frames of reference taking a straight-line path on its geodesic through spacetime. This is a great video, I think everyone here should watch it.

« Last Edit: April 23, 2021, 04:25:24 PM by scomato »

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #159 on: April 23, 2021, 05:54:35 PM »
I disagree with that.  Curved spacetime is validated by Einstein's field equations (not to mention experimental evidence).  It works exactly as predicted by the field equations.  As far as I know, there are no equations that can be used to validate bendy light.

Not disagreeing which is why I said, "on the surface."

What the equivalence between acceleration and gravity means is that they produce the same effect.  If the effect of acceleration is motion, then the effect of gravity is motion. 

Yes, but equivalence allows acceleration and gravity to cause motion in two different ways in the the two differing views.

If the effect of acceleration is the warping of spacetime, then the effect of gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Does FE state that the effect of acceleration is the warping of spacetime?  I don't believe it does but admittedly don't know.

Your response just makes my point.  Use the Newtonian definition of force to explain why gravity is not a force in GR.

Fers claim that gravity is not a force in GR, but completely ignore the reasons why.  Accept the conclusion, but not the reasoning that leads to the conclusion.  Does that make sense to you?

Not only is that cherry picking, its wanting to eat your cherries and have them too.

That is a separate discussion of I'm right, you're wrong. 

The question at hand is how would the bottle behave if the conditions of FE and UA were correct.  The test presented doesn't accurately represent what would happen under UA.  That is what AATW and I have been discussing.  IF the earth were flat and accelerating upwards due to UA the water and bottle would behave exactly the same way as under GR.  Which one happens to be true is irrelevant to the test.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University