So the discovery of gravitational waves was confirmed today (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html). You guys don't believe in gravity, so I was wondering what your thoughts were on this. Is this just totally fraudulent?I'm sure they would say something similar as "How would you know it's not another government hoax to invest in their pseudoscience?"
Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass. Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.
They aren't mutually exclusive though.
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass.
Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.Most Physicist doesn't accept the existence of gravitons, which is irrelevant in this thread discussing the discovery of gravity waves confirming prediction from General Relativity.
Is that correct?I don't know. Have you measured it?
Most Physicist doesn't accept the existence of gravitons, which is irrelevant in this thread discussing the discovery of gravity waves confirming prediction from General Relativity.Except that "gravity waves" were not discovered.
Is that correct?I don't know. Have you measured it?
Junker, can you stop being deliberately obtuse?I am not sure what you are referring to.
If you're going to make some sort of point, then just make your pointAlready done.
Your conduct is absolutely horrible for conducting productive conversations right now.I felt like the conversation was going just fine. Not sure why you are so upset.
So you've made some distinction between "gravity" and "gravitation".Yes
Can you explain how that's relevant to the discovery of gravitational waves?Gravity isn't relevant to the alleged discovery of gravitational waves. That was my point.
If you're going to claim that gravitational waves haven't actually been discoveredI never made such a claim. Einstein said they weren't real, not me. Are you suggesting you are smarter than Einstein was?
...seemed like you were implying thatYou've inserted a whole lot of unneeded assumption and conjecture here.
I would like to note that in conversations about this with other FE'ers, it seems that when they dismiss gravity, they deny the existence of an attractive force between massive object as well as whatever your other interpretation is supposed to mean.That is great, but the position of FES is that there is at least some gravitational influence.
Physics leads me to this distinction. Physics is the source for your second question as well, although I admittedly made it sound more interesting to better reflect reality.Can you expand or be more specific on this? Physics is a very broad term. What physics makes this distinction and how? How, in physics, could a force be unobservable?
What physics makes this distinction and how?
So, I look up the Wiki.What physics makes this distinction and how?GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
If "gravitation exists in other celestial bodies", why not between bodies on the surface of the earthThis conjecture is simply a false premise leading to a faulty conclusion.
the the variation of gravity with altitude has no reported daily or monthly variation.I am not really sure what you are arguing here.
Gravity on earth also varies with latitude. This is explained on the Globe by the rotation and differing radii.Please provide evidence for this claim.
There are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.I think we should probably muddle through this first round of cobbled together thoughts before even considering discussing much else.
Help me a bit, what "false premise"?If "gravitation exists in other celestial bodies", why not between bodies on the surface of the earthThis conjecture is simply a false premise leading to a faulty conclusion.
The Sun, moon and other "Celestial bodies" rotate at rates one revolution in about 24 hours (sun, planets and stars) and about 29 days for the moon.Quotethe the variation of gravity with altitude has no reported daily or monthly variation.I am not really sure what you are arguing here.
Evidence of what? That "Gravity on earth also varies with latitude." This has been known for around 400 years since Christiaan Huygens found unexplained variations in the rate of pendulum clocks. Temperature variations were important, but were compensated for. Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton determined the variations were due to a variation in "g".QuoteGravity on earth also varies with latitude. This is explained on the Globe by the rotation and differing radii.Please provide evidence for this claim.
QuoteThere are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.I think we should probably muddle through this first round of cobbled together thoughts before even considering discussing much else.
What physics makes this distinction and how?GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
What physics makes this distinction and how?
GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
I don't know if this helps or hinders. Most is from a post I made in "the other place". I guess you know all this anyway, but here goes.I was hoping for more from you. I find myself no clearer on the distinction between gravitation and gravity. I have a description of gravity from you that makes little sense with its reference to an unobservable force. Do GR and SR also describe gravity? If not, how do they make the distinction in question?What physics makes this distinction and how?GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
This is what happens when erroneous information is published in the official faq: the RE have a field day with it.
The faq must be written by someone who does have the experience and know-how in explaining planetary/stellar gravity.
The tides could not possibly be caused by a force of attraction; on the contrary, they are caused BY A FORCE OF PRESSURE APPLIED TO THE WATER.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127
Using GTR/STR to defend FET is hilarious: both are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
If the FET is true, then GTR/STR is an impossibility.
But it is being felt by each and every being: it is called biohomochirality.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624
"Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation."
Ether will behave as a solid to a fluid, and as a fluid to a solid
Nikola Tesla
The icosahedral structure of the water molecule and ether waves:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722739#msg1722739
To prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE, we have at our disposal the celebrated experiments of Lamoreaux, DePalma, Biefeld-Brown, Kozyrev.
??? I'm really glad we have people here who can comprehend these complex concepts. I'm not particularly one of those people.You claim "there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon". This is simply not true, it does not begin to explain "the phenomenon". Pressure acts all around an object, not just on top, so cannot cause a "downward" force. Also measure the weight of objects under a very low pressure in a "vacuum chamber" and the weight increases, yet we take an object to a high altitude where the pressure is also much much lower and the weight decreases!
In layman's terms can you explain to me what constitutes "up" and "down"? I don't believe in Newtonian gravity, and I feel there is adequate cause to believe density and pressure are enough to explain the phenomenon. But I'm still at a loss to explain why down is perpendicular to the plane.
If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific historyYou ask: "If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth?"
There is no such thing as dark matter/dark energy:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4417.msg86532#msg86532
To convince yourself that terrestrial gravity is indeed a force due to the pressure exerted by telluric currents/subquark strings:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg79189#msg79189
These subquarks strings are at the origin of not only terrestrial gravity (dextrorotatory subq.), but also are the cause of the biohomochirality phenomenon (laevorotatory subq. or left-handed subq.); at the present time, biohomochirality cannot be explained at all, except if we bring the power of ether physics to solve this most important matter.
We went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.
What seems laughable to me is that they ridicule Globe Earth supporters for thinking that the earthWe went from being the center of our known universe to a lucky insignigant speck in the cosmos. My personal belief is we lie somewhere in between.Accordingly the FE theory of "the force known as gravity", the FE is flying through space, at a constant speed, in a linear fashion and somehow carrying the sun (the prime move of all life forms) with us.
This would make the FE both the center of the universe as well as being an incredibly luck, insignificant speck in the cosmos as we carry all that we need for life but are leaving everything else behind rather quickly.
What lies in between?
is actually a massive moving ball spinning through space at over 1,000 miles per hour, wobbling and tilted 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, while orbiting the sun at a blinding 67,000 miles per hour, in concert with the entire solar system spiraling 500,000 miles per hour around the Milky Way and careening across the expanding universe away from the “Big Bang” at an incredible 670,000,000 miles per hour, but that you feel and experience none of it!from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-globe-earth-lie.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-globe-earth-lie.html) [1]
Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.
If gravity exists by virtue of mass then why do we revolve around the sun instead of careen into it? Why does the moon not fall to earth? Also by pressure and density I meant as to why something like a helium filled would go towards the part of the atmosphere with less pressure. That makes sense to me. But a force that can't totally be proven in its accepted form having hundreds of years of math piled on top seems like a huge error in human scientific historyBecause of our orbital path around the sun. We actually do fall towards it but keep "missing" because of the earth's speed relative to the sun.
Yeah, I think the upward acceleration thing is bunk. It really is superlative to the concept. With that aside, I do find it hard to pass the common sense test that we somehow are drawn by a magical property of mass to the ground, but that same force is to explain why we orbit around a star 93 million miles away.You think it strange that "we somehow are drawn by a magical property of mass to the ground", but not strange that an iron nail is "somehow are drawn by a magical property a magnet to itself"? I wonder why!
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.
It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.
Far from being a "usurpation of the scientific method." the development of the Heliocentric Globe is the scientific method. A massive amount of observation was done from thousands of years BC in Egypt and other countries, through to later years in Greece, Italy, other parts of Europe and the Middle East. The present model was developed to explain these numerous observations. There were numerous hypotheses on the way, but the present model was chosen because it explains the observations most closely.It is? And that is proven via what, chalkboards of mathematical equations working backwards towards a predetermined solution? Its unrealistic, has no basis in observable phenomenon, and is a usurpation of the scientific method. But we just take someones word on it as gospel. I swear modern science is as much a excercise of faith as the religions science routinely seeks to askew.You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.
It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.
You're being nothing but an apologist and just repeating yourself. How is there a such thing as "just the right distance" to REVOLVE around something when the only principal of the "law" is objects are drawn to other objects in a straight line? And as far as your magnet concept that isn't a mystery, that is well known property of feromagnetism. However I'm a organic mass not an iron nail. Nothing we observe on Earth can be duplicated and experimented to show a living protein drawn to anything else... Well besides pointless debate over the internet that is.Gravity does pull objects in a straight line towards the center of the object they're orbiting. It's the speed along their prograde vector that makes them flying past the object they orbit, as fast as they fall towards them.
It's the lack of friction that keeps them from slowing down, and the gravitational pull off the major gas planets Jupiter and Saturn that balances the orbit of earth around the sun so that the orbital decay of earth is reduced to a few centimeters (IIRC) a year.
It is? And that is proven via what, chalkboards of mathematical equations working backwards towards a predetermined solution? Its unrealistic, has no basis in observable phenomenon, and is a usurpation of the scientific method. But we just take someones word on it as gospel. I swear modern science is as much a excercise of faith as the religions science routinely seeks to askew.
What keeps the sun floating in space? What makes gravity work? How does a big bang create massive spheres of differing materials. Where did the oxygen in our atmosphere come from? Don't try to ask me questions that you know have tricky answers when there are tons of holes around heliocentric theory as well.
One possibility is the sun could possibly be bound to the earths magnetic field. Thats a thing right? It's quantifiable, observable, doesn't necessarily take faith to believe in. Gravity however, is entirely too flawed to base everything on. No one has adequately explained why something as massive as the sun doesn't just pull everything into it. You'd rather me believe our entire solar system, and the supposed millions of others exists solely upon luck. Good thing Jupiter is there pulling us away from the sun, and keeping us the perfect distance for life as we know it to thrive.
By the way what is life? Another product of the big bang I suppose.
What keeps the sun floating in space? What makes gravity work? How does a big bang create massive spheres of differing materials. Where did the oxygen in our atmosphere come from? Don't try to ask me questions that you know have tricky answers when there are tons of holes around heliocentric theory as well.
One possibility is the sun could possibly be bound to the earths magnetic field. Thats a thing right? It's quantifiable, observable, doesn't necessarily take faith to believe in. Gravity however, is entirely too flawed to base everything on. No one has adequately explained why something as massive as the sun doesn't just pull everything into it. You'd rather me believe our entire solar system, and the supposed millions of others exists solely upon luck. Good thing Jupiter is there pulling us away from the sun, and keeping us the perfect distance for life as we know it to thrive.
By the way what is life? Another product of the big bang I suppose.
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.
You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.
Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.
Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
It is, only if you disregard every single man made object put into space as fraudBecause masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.
You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.
Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.
Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.
But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.
Coincidentally, I do, but that is a discussion for another topic.It is, only if you disregard every single man made object put into space as fraudBecause masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.
You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.
Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.
Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.
But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.Coincidentally, I do, but that is a discussion for another topic.It is, only if you disregard every single man made object put into space as fraudBecause masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
That is an obvious misconception. The experiment has been done plenty of times afterwards.
You always approach a possible finding with a hypothesis. You confirm it by making an observation. You explain it with a theory.
Reproducibility is key, you either confirm or disprove an observation or a theory. If the same observation is made, utilizing the workings of the theory you have reproduced the results. If the theory can explain how you get the results over and over again, it becomes a well established theory.
Thats how it works. Observation = fact. Theory = explanation.
But how could Cavendish came to any other conclusion? He went into the experiment implicitly trying to prove gravity is the cause of attraction between the objects. Not that there is an attractive force between these two objects, let's find out what it is. As many scientists and casual observers have noted over the years that there are multitudes of reasons why the positions of metal objects might fluctuate over the course of time. It was flawed from the outset. And if this is the only reproducible proof of Gravity as a force, then I remain unconvinced.
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.
I suspect you are unable to imagine just how much space there actually is. This will go no where.Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.
I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.You claim "Because masses have no inherent reason to attract." Yet can you give any plausible reason why electric charges attract?
Also, we know that somehow things are "attracted down", so what is the mechanism.Flat earth supporters come up various ideas to explain this. The main ones being:
- "Universal Acceleration": There are a number of holes in this. One interesting one is that if Einstein's relativity is accepted, we could not have been on earth more than about 45 years! see below [1]
- "Denspressure": But, if there is no gravity (or UA), what causes the air pressure? In any case i can come up with numerous fallacies in this "hypothesis"
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHereIe: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction.Yes, there is some kind of attraction, but a 200 m diameter ball of concrete would attract a 200 mm diameter ball of concrete with a force of a little over 0.5 gm! Gravitation is a very weak force - if it were otherwise you would be squashed like a dead fly on the earth's surface.Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHereWhats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?The gravitation due to the moon and sun on the earth's surface is extremely small! Tides are caused not so much by the "lifting" of water as causing the water to flow from one part of the earth to another. This explains a number of tidal effects.
- Small bodies of water are hardly affected at all. Tides will occur only in bodies large enough for water to flow. Even in the Mediterranean Sea tides are small.
- Tides are greatly affected by the sea-floor.
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHereThat would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.Cavendish never set out to "prove gravity". His claimed aim was to "weigh the earth" and find its density. And he did not approach it "with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it." Before Cavendish the density of the earth was expected to be similar to that of the surface rocks - around 2,500 to 3,000 kg/m3 and Newton used this sort of figure to estimate the mass of the earth.
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
Cavendish, however, found that the density of the earth was 5,448 kg/m3 - a little lower than the accepted figure.
So you are completely wrong in this!Cavendish did not set out with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it.Cavendish had no idea that his density would turn out so high.
From the Cavendish result we can calculate the Universal Gravitational Constant G, and his result is within about 1% of the accepted value.
I really cannot understand your logic! You obviously accept radio wave propagation, but you cannot sense it in any way without "instruments" - a receiver! But, you will not accept gravitation that you can sense, though not easily measure without "instruments".
[1] If we accept relativity, and TFES seems to (see http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light), then we must accept time dilation, etc. If the earth were to start acceleration at 9.8 m/s2 15 billion years ago (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the acceleration earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth! (see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html (http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)) I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures!
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.
I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
Magnets do not attract each other.
They establish a flow of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) between their respective south/north poles.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332
There is no such thing as the Cavendish experiment: it failed miserably to explain "attractive gravity".
Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) demonstrated conclusively that terrestrial gravity is a force OF PRESSURE.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.msg1749881#msg1749881
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.
I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
Apply simple research and math to your question.
The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second. At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed. Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.
The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.
Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.
Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.
I am really interested, when you can access a computer please find the "corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic" which justifies your claim "It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together."! And I thought you claimed that you did not believe in anything orbiting the earth, so just how were these "photos taken from low orbit"? You claim this and claim that, yet never have any evidence! There are numerous things that I claim are evidence. Here are just a few related to satellites:
| (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs/4/infrared/1/201602212130-00.png) From Japanese Himawari Satellite taken 21:30 UTC, 21 Feb 2016 (30 min ago) Shows Cyclone Winston, now west of Fiji and a heavy cloud mass giving a lot of rain the south eastern corner of the Gulf of Carpentaria! |
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.
I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
Apply simple research and math to your question.
The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second. At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed. Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.
The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.
Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.
Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.
I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
Apply simple research and math to your question.
The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second. At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed. Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.
The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.
Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.
Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.I do find it quite amusing really! You refuse to believe any satellite is real even though there is abundant evidence but you:
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.I do find it quite amusing really! You refuse to believe any satellite is real even though there is abundant evidence but you:You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!
- believe the the sun magically rotates above on a funny, though quite unexplained, spiral sort of motion.
- believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset directions to magically match the exact locations predicted by the rotating globe earth.
- believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset times to exactly match the times predicted by the rotating globe earth.
- believe the sunlight and moonlight bends in amazing ways for the sun and moon to stay the same size and shape from rising to setting.
- believe that somehow this odd spiralling sun and moon can cause the moon phases and eclipses - usually some other completely imaginary bodies are postulated - yet these event are easily explained and predicted for the globe earth.
- believe that even though the sun travels quite different distances in the various seasons it still manages to rotate exactly once each 24 hours.
- believe that the earth magically has kept accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 since the earth began. I won't scare you now with the distance it might have travelled - of course you may have some other explanation for gravity!
- believe in some funny sort of perspective that appears to make ships, the sun and the moon disappear behind the horizon in exactly the way predicted by the globe!
- believe that the planets and stars are only tiny spots of light, yet when observed with powerful telescopes show such amazing detail.
Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!
Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!
You say: "What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe.", but a lot of the things I mention are simple things like sunrise, sunset times and directions - anyone can check them!What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe. Long before we were somehow launching satellites into deep space and maintaining their course, or sending humans through massive belts of radiation to land on the moon and take perfectly framed photographs for us, it was only the movements of the celestial bodies that led people to adopt the globe model. And it wasn't instantaneously accepted, or precisely matching what we observe. It took concessions like Earth being tilted on an axis, its heliocentric orbit elliptical, our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe, and pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!
Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!
Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!
You're right, how stupid could I be. We are an insignificant spec in the cosmos after all. Gravity does exist even though they've never found a particle responsible, a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it . . . . . . . . . . .I won't try to answer all of this, or even argue against the flat earth, just give you my take on what you have written.
Black holes and dark matter, quantum mechanics and other stuff you need a doctorate to pretend to understand are what drives it all. No way we are infinite beings on an infinite plane created by some kind of infinite higher power. Just space dust.
A notoriously shy man (it has been postulated that he was autistic[1]), Cavendish was nonetheless distinguished for great accuracy and precision in his researches into the composition of atmospheric air, the properties of different gases, the synthesis of water, the law governing electrical attraction and repulsion, a mechanical theory of heat, and calculations of the density (and hence the mass) of the Earth. His experiment to measure the density of the Earth has come to be known as the Cavendish experiment.On top of that numerous similar experiments (I have the details of over 60) have verified his result! Your calling it a rudimentary experiment in a shed is quite misleading. It is an extremely difficult experiment. BTW Do you get all you information from Flat Earth Youtube videos?
The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).When a few others start bothering about it I will stick with what I can see!
For me Cosmology has no impact at all on the basic Heliocentric Globe Earth!
No wonder you are a RE believer.
If you want anybody to believe you that the Earth is round, for starters you must address the Faint Young Sun Paradox.
Until then, anything you say amounts to nothing.
FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290
The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).
Speaking of paradoxes...
How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?
What has the origin of life or the age of the sun got to do with "Gravitational Waves" or the "Shape of the Earth"?Speaking of paradoxes...
How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?
Speaking of paradoxes... How has the sun ever been able to generate life? Is that what you truly believe happened?
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long? What is the FE dance for this to happen?Easy: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
You went to "globular" school! I never did, I suppose that is why I don't know all these things!How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long? What is the FE dance for this to happen?Easy: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I learned that in "globular" school.
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.
No you're not but such is the nature of this forum. The entire thing is built upon the structure of a sentence or paragraph and everyone, myself included, waits on baited breath for the person they are arguing with to make a slip in grammar so that they can then attempt to tear their argument apart.
Bad on me for structuring my statement incorrectly. Good on you for catching it and latching on to it.
Care to address the actual paradox that I posed?
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long? What is the FE dance for this to happen?
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long? What is the FE dance for this to happen?Easy: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I learned that in "globular" school.
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long? What is the FE dance for this to happen?Easy: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I learned that in "globular" school.
Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?
The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure. Most of the energy would be lost to radiation. How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long? What is the FE dance for this to happen?Easy: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I learned that in "globular" school.
Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?
The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure. Most of the energy would be lost to radiation. How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?
How does the sun do that on a RE?
How does the sun do that on a RE?(What do you mean by RE? I thought the Flat Earth WAS round!)
The Globe Earth's sun uses "Thermonuclear Fusion" as an energy sourcebut is 2x1013 times the volume of the FE sun (IF it is a sphere!),and the Globe Earth sun's energyis spread over an area only about 240x106 times the area of the Flat Earth!The Globe Earth's sun has massively more relative volume of fuel for its thermonuclear "furnace"!
If you believe that we have accurately measured the "life span" of the Sun then you have to address the point sandokhan brought up earlier in this thread. We can only postulate, theorize, hypothesize how the sun works from here on Earth, supposedly 93 million miles away. By the way, if gravity is as powerful as it is on the sun, and it bends light and somehow can hold radiation back, then how is that the Earth gets any sunlight or UV radiation from the sun?I don't "have to address the point sandokhan brought up" or anything else!
A ray of light nicking the edge of the sun, for example, would bend a minuscule 1.75 arcseconds — the angle made by a right triangle 1 inch high and 1.9 miles long.from: http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/ (http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/)
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon groundRight, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to find a lot of common ground!
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon groundRight, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to find a lot of common ground!
No I want to replace them with things that are independently verifiable, universally experienced, and built on a foundation of common sense. General Relativity? Get the **** out of here with that nonsense.
Realistic explanation of LIGO's billion dollar discovery.
No I want to replace them with things that are independently verifiable, universally experienced, and built on a foundation of common sense.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.What about the hundreds of measurements[1] to determine the "Universal Gravitational Constant", they achieved substantially the same result - all by chance?
Realistic explanation of LIGO's billion dollar discovery.
Is this just totally fraudulent?Yes.