61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 22, 2021, 08:59:12 PM »

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

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

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

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

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 22, 2021, 05:49:34 PM »

What you're suggesting, fisherman, is that if you balance the bottle on the palm of your hand then the water would flow out of the holes because your hand provides the force which the ground would were the bottle on the ground. But if you hold it anywhere else then the water wouldn't because the bottom of the bottle doesn't have that force applied.
I'm pretty sure that's not right

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

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

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

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 22, 2021, 04:11:45 PM »

No, there is still gravity in freefall.  If there wasn't, freefall would stop.

No, according to GR, there is no “force” of gravity during freefall.  In Newtonian physics freefall is defined as motion under the force of gravity.  In GR, it is defined as motion under no force at all. When the water bottle falls, it is just following a geodesic without any forces stopping it.  There isn’t any force on it at all. That is the whole point of the demonstration. Check out what Brian Greene says about the 4:20 mark of the video.  Paraphrase...the water is flowing because of gravity, but if Einstein is right, the water won't feel gravity and stop flowing when it is dropped.

In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#:~:text=In%20the%20context%20of%20general,no%20force%20acting%20on%20it.&text=An%20object%20moving%20upwards%20might,to%20be%20in%20free%20fall.

Under UA this would be no different as AATW explained.  When you are holding the bottle, both you and the bottle are being pushed upward but the water is not until the earth reaches it as it hits the ground.  Therefore the water 'falls'.  Once the bottle is released, then both the bottle and water are stationary while the earth is traveling to meet them

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

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

The reason that this doesn’t violate the EP is because the reason accelerated motion without gravity is indistinguishable from being at rest in a gravitational field is because in both cases, the forces effecting an object are equivalent.  Accelerated motion pushing the floor up against your feet causes a reaction that causes your body to push against the floor and feels the same as “gravity” pulling your feet down and the floor pushing back up.  In both cases there is a reaction force that can be interpreted as a reaction to being accelerated up or to being pulled down.

Here the forces effecting the bottle as you hold it are not equivalent.  Holding it up in the air doesn't produce the equivalent effect of it being on the ground. There is no reaction force.



   

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 22, 2021, 12:54:58 PM »

Isn't it air pressure? Isn't that the force that stops the water escaping when it's in freefall under gravity?

No, the water doesn't escape from the holes when it is in freefall because there is no gravity in freefall. After thinking about it, this is what I realized when I went back and made my later edit. Actually, I went and found the video I saw sometime ago and refreshed my memory. I didn't think my original response all the way through. The link to the demonstration is below. Good part starts around 3:10

In a UA environment, holding the bottle, the earth is accelerating and the bottle is accelerating with you. There is a "pinning force"...which seems to be just a "reverse normal force"...keeping you on the ground.  But that normal force isn't working on the bottle because it isn't on the ground. It isn't responsible for the water flowing down. When you let go, there is no change in the forces on the bottle that would account for the water to stop flowing down.

In an RE environment, gravity is pulling the water down from the holes, when you are holding it, but when you let go, the water stops flowing because there is no gravity.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 21, 2021, 08:29:58 PM »

Not true.

Well, what you say is true, but my point is that there is nothing different about holding the bottle and letting it go that would account for the water to stop pouring out when you let go.

When you are holding the bottle and it is accelerating with you, there is a continuous stream flowing from the holes.  When you let go of the bottle and it is no longer accelerating with you, the water should continue to flow from the holes and remain stationary until the earth catches up. There is no force on the bottle that would keep the water from escaping, at least at the points where the holes are. Water conforms to the shape of it’s container. Do you think the water bottles astronauts use on the ISS have holes in them?

Before you claim that it would be a violation of the EP, I remind you that the EP only applies to objects that are under constant acceleration/at rest in a gravitational field.  A body at rest in a gravitational field cannot be distinguished from an object under constant acceleration.

A freely falling water bottle is neither. It is not under the constant acceleration that would be created by a FE under UA, nor is it at rest in a gravitational field that would created by a RE.

EDIT:  Actually, now that I think about it, what you said isn't entirely true.  When you're holding the bottle, it would be accelerating with you, but the "mechanical force" that supposedly keeps us pinned to the ground wouldn't be acting on the water bottle because that is a contact force.  The bottom of the bottle isn't in contact with the ground.  Even when you are holding the bottle, the water should just leak from the holes and hang.  There's no force to make the water fall.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 21, 2021, 05:22:42 PM »

According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

Why wouldn't it keep pouring out?  If the water is pouring out when you are holding onto to bottle, why would it stop when you let go, according to UA?  According to UA, the same forces are working on the water bottle when you are hold it as when you let it go.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 21, 2021, 04:43:23 PM »

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).

   

This confuses me.  It seems like you'd need a completely different equation to determine TV under the FE model.  The wiki define FE TV as A: When the acceleration of the falling object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object has reached terminal velocity relative to the Earth.

The equation for TV used by RE is used to determine when the falling object is no longer accelerating.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 20, 2021, 11:02:17 PM »

According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?

The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 20, 2021, 06:08:19 PM »

The distance the light has to travel isn't the same on the left hand version and the right hand version. Obviously if light is traveling at a set speed in each version, there will be a delay in bouncing between the mirrors on the right side since there is a greater distance the light has to travel to make the route.

That's the point.  The amount of space the light has to travel to bounce between one end of the clock increases if the clock is moving.  Why? Because it has to move horizontally and vertically, as opposed to just vertically when it is still.

If it is just moving through horizontal space when it is still to get from one end of the clock to the other, but must move through vertical and horizontal space when it is moving, the the shape of the space between the ends of the light clock through which the light moves is different when it is moving than when it is stationary.

EDIT: The problem with your football field analogy is that unlike the ends of the light clock, which never changes, the distance across the 50 yard line and a lap around the whole field is different.  In essence, your using two different light clocks.  If the distance between the ends of one light clock is 20 yards and the difference between the ends of the other light clock is 100 yds...of course your going to come up with different times to travel between the two ends.

A better analogy if you want to stick with the football field is that it would take longer to run a lap around the field if you "zig zag" from one side of the track to the other, while at the same time moving around it.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 20, 2021, 05:43:16 PM »

It's the same situation as the football field example. A person is walking in reference to the frame of the football field. An equation can be made showing that he can walk across the football field faster than walking around it. Aether theory likewise merely proposes that light moves in reference to a fundamental frame.

Again, you don't understand the concept at all.  It takes longer to walk around a football field than to go through it because the distance is different  When the distance is different, obviously the time will be.

If we are both measuring the time it takes me to make a lap around a football field and I get a different measurement than you...then we have two different times to travel the same distance

Two completely different concepts.

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 20, 2021, 04:05:26 PM »

Spacetime distortion is not only testable but the phenomenon is practically applied every day, in correcting GPS satellites desynchronizing of time caused by relativistic effects. 'Untestable' is a blatant lie, it is both testable, observable, and applied in day-to-day life.

The warping of spacetime literally causes errors in GPS positioning due to clocks ticking slower due to the warping of spacetime. Flat Earth doesn't have an explanation for time dilation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
[/quote]

You don't even have to get that technical to test it. 

Take a circular disk in an inertial frame.  Its geometry will be Euclidean, the geometery of flat surfaces. If  the disk is ten feet in diameter, it means that we can lay 10 foot long rulers across the diameter and the circumference is pi x 10 feet, which is about 31 feet.   That means that we can work around the full circumference of the disk by laying 31 rulers around the outer rims of the disk.   

Take another disk, same diameter, put it in circular motion. It will take more than 31 rulers to work around the circumference of the disk. Circumference is no longer = pi* 10 feet.  Flat Euclidean geometry doesn’t apply when the disk is rotated.  The shape of space is different when an object is in motion.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 20, 2021, 12:48:46 PM »

Fill a water bottle and punch holes along the sides so that water pours from them.  Drop the bottle at some height.

According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.  But that's not what happens. 

The water stops pouring from the holes while the bottle is in free fall.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 19, 2021, 07:44:03 PM »

Say I create an equation showing that it takes longer to walk around a football field than to walk across it. You then come along and use my equation and claim that the time delay was a result of "spacetime distortion".

Obviously we have one explanation which can actually fundamentally explain a situation, and another explanation which uses stolen equations and which invokes an explanation in a hidden untestable layer of reality.

Why should the untestable "spacetime distortion" explanation be given any credence?

Tom, you have a basic misunderstanding of the concept of what “the warping of space time” is. A more appropriate analogy would be if I measure the time it takes me to make a lap around a football field, why would someone else measure a different time?

The bottom line is you can’t assign the reason to the ether without violating the action-reaction principle.  And "spacetime distortion" is not hidden.  Its called framedragging.  It certainly isn't more hidden or any more untestable that the "ether whirlpool".

74

Flat Earth Theory / The equivalence principle and non-uniform motion

« on: April 19, 2021, 07:29:56 PM »

UA starts with the EP as its foundation as a theory for gravity.  Uniformly accelerated motion is the equivalent of being at rest in a gravitational field, therefore it follows that what we experience as gravity is actually the uniform acceleration of the earth. (Please correct if I have misrepresented)

But why can they be considered equivalent?  Because the situations are symmetrical. In both cases, the observer experiences the same forces (or lack of them).  But non-uniform motion is not the equivalent of being at rest in a gravitational field. The forces experienced by an observer in uniform motion are not the same as the forces experienced by an observer in non-uniform motion.

I think that is where using the EP, in isolation, as a foundation for a theory of gravity breaks down.  It doesn’t explain how gravity works with respect to non-uniform motion.  As long as it is limited to objects that “are at rest in a gravitational” field it works fine, but it doesn’t explain how gravity works with respect to objects that are not at rest in a gravitational field.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 18, 2021, 07:06:50 PM »

If you read the paper by Joseph Levy you would find that on page 10-11 and in his conclusion he says that the aether version of time dilation results from measurement distortion, and that this measurement distortion of time creates identical predictions to SR. How could it be a coincidence that the two are mathematically identical? Levy states that it is not a coincidence. It is not a coincidence because SR is merely trying to simulate the measurement distortion effect.

If Levy’s results are indistinguishable from special relativity, then why should we prefer one over the other?  You need to look at which theory can be better incorporated into other accepted principles.  In this case, it is SR.

The ether theory violates the action-reaction principle.  The motion through the ether causes a slowing down of the moving clocks, but how does the slowing down of the moving clocks, in turn, effect the ether?  In contrast, in SR, the motion through spacetime causes spacetime to warp, which in turn causes the clocks to slow down. Warping of spacetime gives us a path to the cause of gravity.

There is no direct path from ether to gravity.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 17, 2021, 08:15:14 PM »

Try this: Put a plate on a baking soda + vinegar rocket. Place a bowl on the plate. The plate is our FE, the bowl is our dome, and the rocket is my proposed rocket. Trigger the rocket, and tell me if, for an observer on the plate, they are always traveling up.

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

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

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

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

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3899.pdf

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 17, 2021, 05:38:56 AM »

Nonono, the whole point of having a rocket in the center is that if the FE tilts, the rocket tilts with it. Of course, there is still the notion of fuel (fusion might be viable, as it wasn't made by humans), along with the fact that it has never been detected, ever, in the history of humans.

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

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

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 16, 2021, 06:49:42 PM »

Yes. This is a test to see if the FErs will listen to anything, and it is good debate practice to show all possible angles. I am genuinely interested to see how FErs and GErs alike will respond to this theory.

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

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

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

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 15, 2021, 05:08:37 AM »

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

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

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 15, 2021, 02:51:32 AM »

Now we’re getting somewhere and you’ve given me something to work with other than just “no, you’re wrong”.

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

You said

Relativity is not needed for Time Dilation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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