*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3126
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #60 on: December 06, 2017, 11:35:47 PM »
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

Offline ghostopia

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • The Earth is round
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #61 on: December 06, 2017, 11:50:00 PM »
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

You noticed that cannot be used here if you reject the Round Earth's evidence of "I step off a chair and I fall down to the ground" because of the Equivalence principle that you used to prove that acceleration acts same as Gravity.

Also we do have proofs for Gravity. For example the Cavendish experiment.
Why believe in Flat Earth theory when there is so much evidence supporting Round Earth?

Flat Earth map cannot exist

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3126
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #62 on: December 07, 2017, 12:03:28 AM »
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

You noticed that cannot be used here if you reject the Round Earth's evidence of "I step off a chair and I fall down to the ground" because of the Equivalence principle that you used to prove that acceleration acts same as Gravity.

Also we do have proofs for Gravity. For example the Cavendish experiment.

They would act the same way in theory, sure, but when we weigh the evidence there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space. We have direct observational evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth, even if the deeper power source behind it remains unknown, but NO evidence at all for the other mechanisms, let alone their power sources.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 472
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #63 on: December 07, 2017, 12:18:21 AM »
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

This is so wrong, Tom. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. The warping of spacetime has been proven via experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#Experimental_tests

Are you smarter than Einstein???

Further, LIGO has detected several gravitational waves. Those can't exist in FEH and yet we have detected them.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3126
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #64 on: December 07, 2017, 12:32:26 AM »
This is so wrong, Tom. Gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is a puller particle called the Graviton. Are you saying that you know better than QM physicists to know what the true mechanism of gravity is? Where is your Nobel Prize?

Quote
The warping of spacetime has been proven via experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#Experimental_tests

Frame dragging is a Special Relativity thing. Special Relativity, which deals with moving frames of reference, is different from General Relativity, which deals with the bending of space.

Quote
Are you smarter than Einstein???

Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

Quote
Further, LIGO has detected several gravitational waves. Those can't exist in FEH and yet we have detected them

We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 12:39:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Haws

  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Not Flat, Round, Ellipsoid, or Geoid. Just Earth.
    • View Profile
    • Tom Haws Interesting Random Discoveries
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #65 on: December 07, 2017, 12:48:10 AM »
My thinking as regards UA runs along these lines:

My first stumbling block is that nobody can show me a piece of the earth that's willing to exhibit it. Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch suits my mood here perfectly: empirically speaking, it's not a cheese shop.

The second is 'celestial gravity', which is a mysterious invisible something that can evidently pull huge, extremely massive things around in all directions...
...and is allegedly responsible for tides and surface variations in measurements of UA...
...so it acts on regular matter too...
...and between regular matter, as experiments with big balls of lead confirm.

It strikes me as inescapable that even if we begin by assuming the existence of UA, we would also need to account for the 'celestial gravity' the earth's disc exerts upon us. Though not as massive as a spherical form, a disc of rock and metal many miles in thickness would exert a distinct pull - an increasingly lateral pull as one moves away from the pole.

No such tug can be detected. But a tug we know there must be, and the only direction in which it can hide is the one we've reserved for UA.

So the earth's 'celestial gravity' is, without exception anywhere on earth, pulling us in the same direction as UA's 'push'.

Huh.

Now, in truth, there are a few different volumetric distributions of matter that yield a gravitational pull at 90 degrees to the surface (ignoring minor local deformations like hills or waves, obviously) at every relevant point - one being a kind of shallow dome - but none of them are flat. That's a huge problem because as we've already established, UA and the earth's celestial gravity are acting in the same direction. And if the earth isn't flat, then the only value for UA that doesn't tear the earth apart in moments is 'zero'.

It's unfortunate to see CuriousSquirrel remind us that Celestial gravitation != gravity, because I really like the thinking above.

Am I the only person who thinks it's a serious stretch of credulity to think that earth is special? That the laws of nature are different here? That gravity does not work here? I really don't want (but do feel duty bound) to accept what CuriousSquirrel said. Can a Flat Earth believer resolve this?
Have fun and be good to everybody. A special thank you to Tom Bishop for his patience and dedication.

No flat map can predict commercial airline flight times among New York, Paris, Cape Town, & Buenos Aires.

Tom Bishop: Lines of sight are straight

*

Offline Tom Haws

  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Not Flat, Round, Ellipsoid, or Geoid. Just Earth.
    • View Profile
    • Tom Haws Interesting Random Discoveries
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #66 on: December 07, 2017, 12:54:56 AM »
Is this not where pressure would build up after 1000s of years of being pushed upward by UA. Same with water pressure. If it is being pushed up by the earth, would it not eventually have a greater pressure where it is being rammed into the atmosphere rather than it being heavier at the sea floor.

No to both questions. CuriousSquirrel's answer was right. Let me add that the pressure is constant and begins instantaneously as soon as the UA begins because the UA is constant. Water pressure, barometric pressure, football player pyramid pressure, or whatever are all identical to with gravity due to the equivalence principle. The only questions are 1) why is the earth special so that there is no gravity and 2) what causes the UA?
Have fun and be good to everybody. A special thank you to Tom Bishop for his patience and dedication.

No flat map can predict commercial airline flight times among New York, Paris, Cape Town, & Buenos Aires.

Tom Bishop: Lines of sight are straight

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 472
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #67 on: December 07, 2017, 03:17:28 AM »
Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is a puller particle called the Graviton. Are you saying that you know better than QM physicists to know what the true mechanism of gravity is? Where is your Nobel Prize?

You are aware that QM is not horribly relevant at the scale we are talking about and it is used in work involving very small scales. At human visible scales, GR is the model that is used. There are attempts to find a unified theory, but they have been unsuccessful. No need for a Nobel, just need to know what you're talking about.

Quote
Frame dragging is a Special Relativity thing. Special Relativity, which deals with moving frames of reference, is different from General Relativity, which deals with the bending of space.

You are, again, 100% wrong. FD is a feature of GR, not SR and has nothing to do with frames of reference and everything to do with the warping of space. Please Google and read. It isn't a topic most are familiar with.

Quote
Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

No, those words never came out of his mouth. He was referring to acceleration and gravity and he didn't think the Earth was being accelerated.

Quote
We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?

Can you explain what that is, how it works, and why it doesn't cause the sun, moon, Earth, and stars to collide? Also, by what mechanism does it creates waves? Just saying you believe in CG doesn't make it real.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3126
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #68 on: December 07, 2017, 04:09:24 AM »
Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is a puller particle called the Graviton. Are you saying that you know better than QM physicists to know what the true mechanism of gravity is? Where is your Nobel Prize?

You are aware that QM is not horribly relevant at the scale we are talking about and it is used in work involving very small scales. At human visible scales, GR is the model that is used. There are attempts to find a unified theory, but they have been unsuccessful. No need for a Nobel, just need to know what you're talking about.

Oh, so now the mechanism is unknown? You just told us that the mechanism was bendy space.

Quote
Quote
Frame dragging is a Special Relativity thing. Special Relativity, which deals with moving frames of reference, is different from General Relativity, which deals with the bending of space.

You are, again, 100% wrong. FD is a feature of GR, not SR and has nothing to do with frames of reference and everything to do with the warping of space. Please Google and read. It isn't a topic most are familiar with.

No, Frame Dragging is a feature of Special Relativity, which can be expressed by the gravitational effects of General Relativity. Due to the Principle of Equivalence gravitational effects are indistinguishable from inertial effects. When you are around a gravitating body you are accelerating, and that is what causes frame dragging effects. Frame Dragging also occurs through linear acceleration, without the need for a gravitating mass to cause the acceleration at all.

Quote
Quote
Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

No, those words never came out of his mouth. He was referring to acceleration and gravity and he didn't think the Earth was being accelerated.

I didn't say that Einstein believed it. He said that the effect would be equivalent. Einstein asserted that if we were accelerating upwards it would cause an equivalent effect to gravity and we wouldn't know.

Quote
Quote
We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?

Can you explain what that is, how it works, and why it doesn't cause the sun, moon, Earth, and stars to collide? Also, by what mechanism does it creates waves? Just saying you believe in CG doesn't make it real.

Most of those things are unknown. We're empiricists, not astromagineers.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 04:53:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #69 on: December 07, 2017, 06:25:43 AM »
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

You noticed that cannot be used here if you reject the Round Earth's evidence of "I step off a chair and I fall down to the ground" because of the Equivalence principle that you used to prove that acceleration acts same as Gravity.

Also we do have proofs for Gravity. For example the Cavendish experiment.

They would act the same way in theory, sure, but when we weigh the evidence there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space. We have direct observational evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth, even if the deeper power source behind it remains unknown, but NO evidence at all for the other mechanisms, let alone their power sources.
But your evidence is equivalent for any of a number of other options. No need to talk about the theorized mechanism behind gravity. Why isn't it air pressure holding us down (denpressure)? Why not an invisible wind (Aetheric theory)? What about tiny strings connecting everything to Earth that we just haven't developed the technology to see (gravity analogue)? You going from the air to the ground is empirical evidence of one thing only. That when separated you and the Earth attempt to reunite. Why? Can't tell. That's it. There is nothing in this scenario to tell you whether it's you or the Earth that is moving, without bringing in preconceptions. Your eyes say the Earth moves. Inner ear says it sure feels like you moved there.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #70 on: December 07, 2017, 10:40:24 AM »
They would act the same way in theory, sure, but when we weigh the evidence there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space. We have direct observational evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth, even if the deeper power source behind it remains unknown, but NO evidence at all for the other mechanisms, let alone their power sources.

Quite the reverse. 'Celestial gravity' (Mechanism? Pully particles, perhaps? Bendy space? You show me yours, and so forth) is observable via changes of direction of celestial bodies and tides, and measurable, according to FET, even at ground level as variations in UA. Meanwhile you cannot show me anything that exhibits UA. The challenge still stands: you claim 'the earth' is accelerating upwards.  - well, show me a piece of 'the earth' that exhibits that behaviour. If all you can show me are things that don't accelerate upwards, you can hardly claim empiricism.

It's unfortunate to see CuriousSquirrel remind us that Celestial gravitation != gravity, because I really like the thinking above.

Am I the only person who thinks it's a serious stretch of credulity to think that earth is special? That the laws of nature are different here? That gravity does not work here? I really don't want (but do feel duty bound) to accept what CuriousSquirrel said. Can a Flat Earth believer resolve this?

If someone could demonstrate matter undergoing UA, then there would be some justification for formulating an asymmetrical model of gravity. As things stand, though, UA is just wishful thinking. Tom claims that when he steps off a chair, he 'sees' the earth rising to meet him. Yet every single thing he is looking at, if lifted and released, demonstrates the exact opposite tendency.

It's the dog-and-duck routine all over again: we can observe the influence of an invisible force pulling matter around, a force that can influence matter on earth. But is that force responsible for unifying us with the ground? Oh, no no no. It's an absurd leap to suppose that the quacking sounds we can hear are all coming from ducks.

IIRC, Tom himself has said that the precise distribution of 'celestial matter', and thus its influence upon us and the earth's accessible surface, is unknown. To state that the observed behaviour of terrestrial matter cannot be induced by celestial gravity alone is, in direct contradiction of the above, to make a definitive statement excluding distributions that would produce these effects. Again: where is the empiricism?

The clincher, for me, is that even in FET there is no need - other than the pursuit of sophistry - to propose UA. 'Celestial gravitation' is just as good an explanation for why we stick to a disc as UA, and the only reason Tom won't agree to that statement is that UA only works on a flat earth, whereas gravitation could work on anything. He doesn't want to start down that slippery slope.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 04:28:51 PM by JocelynSachs »

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 472
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #71 on: December 07, 2017, 01:33:19 PM »

Oh, so now the mechanism is unknown? You just told us that the mechanism was bendy space.

Stop trying to bend my words. It is transparent and childish. Let me post some definitions for you so you're up to speed.

Graviton - In speculative theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory.

You would hardly hold speculative and hypothetical as proof. It is an attempt to add gravity to QM.


Quote
No, Frame Dragging is a feature of Special Relativity, which can be expressed by the gravitational effects of General Relativity. Due to the Principle of Equivalence gravitational effects are indistinguishable from inertial effects. When you are around a gravitating body you are accelerating, and that is what causes frame dragging effects. Frame Dragging also occurs through linear acceleration, without the need for a gravitating mass to cause the acceleration at all.

More definition time:

In general relativity , a mass's rotation influences the motion of objects in its neighbourhood. Put simply, the rotating mass "drags along" space-time in the vicinity. This is known as Lense-Thirring effect or frame-dragging.

I can see what you're trying to get at with frames of reference, but it doesn't apply in the way you're trying to force it. I know you can't allow gravity to exist in this manner for your flat Earth, so you really want this to be somehow acceleration related, but it isn't. It is angular velocity. The Earth isn't flat.

Quote
Most of those things are unknown. We're empiricists, not astromagineers.

Why do you think empiricism is so great? It seems very limiting to me.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #72 on: December 07, 2017, 03:47:46 PM »
Due to the Principle of Equivalence gravitational effects are indistinguishable from inertial effects.

there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space.

you can't make both of these claims.  invoking equivalence means there is no (local) experiment you can do to distinguish between being in a gravitational force field and standing on an accelerating surface.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Mora

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #73 on: Today at 05:42:01 PM »
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

The LIGO array, which has been brought up three times now and which I've already mentioned won the Nobel Prize in Physics, literally proves curved space-time. This is something we've actually measured. That's what gravitational waves are. They are wave-like disturbances in space-time.

INB4:
We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?

LIGO implies gravitational waves, which you explain with Celestial gravitation, but LIGO also implies bendy space, something you seem to be having a problem with.

Maybe your theory of celestial gravity does have a convenient explanation for everything. I will look into it when I have more time, hopefully soon.

Where is your Nobel Prize?

Touché. Where's yours?

Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

They can't possibly be equivalent by the simple fact that one says the Earth is round while the other says the Earth is flat. A way to settle the matter once and for all would be to fly up into space, fly around the Earth, and observe it's geometry. At which point, one theory would prevail and the other would fail. Thus they are not equivalent. Certainly if you limit their scope enough, then they both appear to be equivalent, just like how the round earth and flat earth become the same when you limit yourself to what you are able to observe from your perspective on the Earth. I think what Einstein was referring to was that direction is all relative. Are we accelerating downwards, or is the Earth accelerating upwards? It's all relative, and unless we are able to observe the Earth from a reference frame not contained in the Earth in our day-to-day, then it makes no difference. That's likely what was meant.
« Last Edit: Today at 06:24:04 PM by Mora »

*

Offline Mora

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #74 on: Today at 05:51:04 PM »

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

The pressure at the bottom of a swimming pool and at the bottom of the oceans comes from the weight of all of the water on top of you. Same with atmospheric pressure. It makes no difference if we are accelerating towards the Earth or if the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's all relative.