1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question on ocean tides

« on: September 01, 2018, 06:11:03 AM »

The trouble with tides:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (pages 9 - 24)


FE tides:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127

whoever wrote that book (i read the pages you mentioned) has a very flawed understanding of Newtonian and Einstein mathematics.  For example, on page  18 in decrediting Einstein they wrote "with respect to Einstein's theory, how does it create tides when Einstein claims a body in curved space feels for force?"  huh?  They totally missed the point of GR…Einstein realized that gravity and acceleration are the same thing, and that gravity was not a force of attraction, but a curvature in space-time.  Both objects (Earth and moon) most definitely feel a force (gravitational pull) and its that force that pulls them together and allows for orbit… Two objects of no mass in this curved space-time will not “feel” any forces, that is how curved space-time works as opposed to Newtownian physics that have an attractive force associated with gravity.

On page 19 they begin to explain tides due to electromagnetic effect and since the oceans are saltwater they are electrified.  Trying to follow along here.  The Great Lakes (fresh water) also have tides, albeit very small height fluctuation.

On page 20 they then say that “water will often, as it slows or stop flowing, create an electromagnetic field” – I would like to see more documentation on this, I am not aware of this phenomenon but seems easy enough to test.  I couldn’t locate any information/experiments on this.

I am curious what you think of my analysis, since you appear to be well educated. Your comments are welcome.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator

« on: September 01, 2018, 12:21:17 AM »

After Einstein won the argument with his accelerating earth concept, the narrator then says that seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model.

that's not even remotely close to what this video says.  or what einstein says.

you're taking the conceit of this video far too literally.  it wasn't an actual argument, and he's not laying things out in any kind of chronological order.  it's just a line of reasoning that you're stopping in the middle of for some reason.

After the accelerating earth drama and Einstein winning the exchange with the Newtonians the narrator continues:

If, instead the world has non-eculidean and curved spacetime then straight lines and constant speed doesn't mean what you think it means. And it turns out that inertial frames in curved space time can basically do whatever they want. It took Einstein about seven years to realize that. But once he did, a beautiful model of the world emerged called General Relativity. One of the central precepts of General Relativity is that we inhabit curved space-time.

Einstein was not using his bendy space arguments against the Newtonians. He was using the accelerating earth argument, just as the narrator states. The upwardly accelerating earth is the premise of the video. The bendy space arguments did not come until later.

This is what the video literally says. If you want to make up your own version of the video and what happened, feel free. That is not what the astrophysicist says and how the situation is portrayed, however.

The "bendy space" argument and the "accelerating" argument are identical. This is the whole point of general relativity. The reason something accelerates is because space is curved, and it is trying to follow the best straight line it can. When space is curved, that straight line is also, hence an acceleration manifests.

So I am very confused by your statement: "Einstein was not using his bendy space arguments against the Newtonians. He was using the accelerating earth argument." There is no difference between these two.

Sorry to jump in mid-conversation. I am just really interested in this topic and want to pick your brain. 

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator

« on: September 01, 2018, 12:15:47 AM »

After Einstein won the argument with his accelerating earth concept, the narrator then says that seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model.

that's not even remotely close to what this video says.  or what einstein says.

you're taking the conceit of this video far too literally.  it wasn't an actual argument, and he's not laying things out in any kind of chronological order.  it's just a line of reasoning that you're stopping in the middle of for some reason.

newton and einstein are arguing about whether or not a free-falling frame of reference is inertial.  newton says that free-falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another, and with respect to the earth; therefore, gravity is a force.  einstein resolves this by saying that newton is right only if space is geometrically flat.  if space itself can curve, then free-falling frames can be inertial for the reasons given in videos two, three, and four.  therefore, gravity is not a force; it's just the curvature of space.

I agree with your conclusion, but disagree on the reasons. Newton claimed that acceleration is caused by a force. Period. The problem with this claim is that, depending on your coordinate system, you can infer "fictitious forces" which do not actually exist. Just think about two children (oppositely positioned) on a rotating carousel. If one throws a ball to the other, the ball will appear to curve. This curve is an acceleration hence a force must have caused it (we call this the Coriolis force, which does not really exist). They will have a different understanding of the cause of the motion than their parents who are standing beside the carousel.

Thus, Newton is incorrect even in Minkowski (flat) space -- the above example demonstrates this. Indeed, free-falling objects have a non-inertial reference frame, and that is the whole point. Einstein showed that one cannot distinguish between a non-inertial frame and an inertial frame that has a force. Thus, all forces must be "fictitious," and must simply be a disagreement about which coordinate system we are using. Of course, showing this mathematically is ridiculously difficult.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question on ocean tides

« on: August 31, 2018, 11:46:19 PM »

Here is that analysis without general relativity. It is attached.

That's only  the explanation of the, I would say, the "initial forces", gravity and centrifugal forces.
This 'static' approach can only explain tides up to 0.8m.
After this come complicated effects like wave propagation, bathymetry - influences of the shape of the sea ground and the coast line - and resonance.

A short "uneducated" explanation, I put together for me. I'm not claiming that this is scientifically correct:
The tidal waves - yes, waves is the best model for it - are initially build as ultra long waves on big oceans. A low (0.5m) but very wide (thousands of square miles) bulge of water, following the attraction of the moon. It's a bit like a tsunami. As these waves approach the coast, these are "compressed" by the rising sea ground and in places additionally by the form of the coast (e.g. Bristol Channel). The waves are getting shorter, but to compensate for this, much higher.
In other places a tidal wave of one high water may be reflected on the coast or diverted, so that it overlaps with the next tidal wave, building a even higher tidal wave by resonance (Bay of Fundy, also North Sea).

There is quite a bit that is correct in what you say; your instincts are good. There are many additional factors that come into play. Remember, I assumed the Earth was entirely covered with a uniform layer of water. That is obviously not reality.

What I have not proven with my (very crude) assessment is that all these factors add correction terms to my analysis. By that I mean the correction terms are smaller than the zero order approximation. It is difficult to explain with equations that the uneven sea floor, the existence of land-masses, etc., add diminishing contributions to the overall pattern I showed. So I do not blame you if you do not take my word for it.

I think I have shown that, if the Earth was entirely covered with a uniform layer of water, and given an even sea-floor, then we would experience 2 tides per 24 hours. The question now is: do the ways in which the Earth deviates from this assumption result in changes that are larger than the zero order approximation?

I can try to perform an analysis for that, but it will be much more complicated and difficult for me.

5

Flat Earth Media / Re: The Earth Plane

« on: August 31, 2018, 06:11:09 AM »

Hmm... I wonder why, when observing the stars, they didn't realize that the reason the stars do not change their positions is because they are light years away! The are too far away for us to notice their movements. If the stars and constellations were in or even slightly near our galaxy, then yes they should, and would, change.

I think the book might be referencing the Precession of the Equinoxes problem.



The stars should be moving over time. The precession is slow. 25,920 yrs = 360° rotation. Divide that up, and the axis of the earth moves at one degree per 72 years in respect to the stars, or 1/4th of a degree every 18 years. Yet the North Star is in the same place it was 72 and 18 years ago. The North Star has not been documented to move, despite the theory that the star configurations were different eons ago. Ancient monuments that were built to point directly at the North Star are, in fact, still lined up with the North Star.

The stars should be moving over time. The precession is slow. 25,920 yrs = 360° rotation. Divide that up, and the axis of the earth moves at one degree per 72 years in respect to the stars, or 1/4th of a degree every 18 years. Yet the North Star is in the same place it was 72 and 18 years ago. The North Star has not been documented to move, despite the theory that the star configurations were different eons ago. Ancient monuments that were built to point directly at the North Star are, in fact, still lined up with the North Star.
[/quote]

Your question is actually more powerful than that: why doesn't Polaris move if we rotate around the Sun?

The answer lies with the fact that Polaris wobbles in a well understood, measurable fashion: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/skytellers/polaris/

Polaris is only the North Star because we’re currently using it as such. 3000 years ago the North Star was Thuban in the constellation of Draco. In 13,000 years we’ll be pointing at Vega as the North Star. And then about 10,000 years after that it will be Thuban again, followed by Polaris in another 3000 years.

Indeed, s=r*\theta, so one second of arc does not apply equally to all bodies at different "r" away, insofar as "s" is concerned. One can only assume your argument to be correct by also automatically assuming that all stars exist on a surface equidistant from Earth.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question on ocean tides

« on: August 31, 2018, 05:28:43 AM »

Here is that analysis without general relativity. It is attached.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question on ocean tides

« on: August 31, 2018, 04:59:18 AM »

The trouble with tides:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (pages 9 - 24)


FE tides:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127

whoever wrote that book (i read the pages you mentioned) has a very flawed understanding of Newtonian and Einstein mathematics.  For example, on page  18 in decrediting Einstein they wrote "with respect to Einstein's theory, how does it create tides when Einstein claims a body in curved space feels for force?"  huh?  They totally missed the point of GR…Einstein realized that gravity and acceleration are the same thing, and that gravity was not a force of attraction, but a curvature in space-time.  Both objects (Earth and moon) most definitely feel a force (gravitational pull) and its that force that pulls them together and allows for orbit… Two objects of no mass in this curved space-time will not “feel” any forces, that is how curved space-time works as opposed to Newtownian physics that have an attractive force associated with gravity.

On page 19 they begin to explain tides due to electromagnetic effect and since the oceans are saltwater they are electrified.  Trying to follow along here.  The Great Lakes (fresh water) also have tides, albeit very small height fluctuation.

On page 20 they then say that “water will often, as it slows or stop flowing, create an electromagnetic field” – I would like to see more documentation on this, I am not aware of this phenomenon but seems easy enough to test.  I couldn’t locate any information/experiments on this.

The tides can be understood without reliance on general relativity. In fact, it is almost essential. If you use non-relativistic mechanics and simply add the vectors, taking into account centripetal acceleration, then it becomes quite clear what happens. The side of the Earth closest to the moon is pulled towards it, while the far side is pulled away. Let me come up with a graphic to show this claim, and I will post it soon.

In fact, it is incorrect to employ general relativity in this case. The Earth falls under the regime of the weak-field limit, whereby general relativity merges with non-relativistic mechanics.

As for page 19 and 20, I echo your confusion.