Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« on: October 11, 2017, 08:13:23 AM »
How FEer explain feeling of weightlessness in a UAing earth?

Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2017, 12:45:21 PM »
How FEer explain feeling of weightlessness in a UAing earth?
You'll have to elaborate on what you mean. In general I would guess they would explain it in pretty much the same way it's explained on the globe Earth. Remember, for *most* things UA is indistinguishable from a gravitational field.
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

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 01:39:22 PM »
How FEer explain feeling of weightlessness in a UAing earth?
You'll have to elaborate on what you mean. In general I would guess they would explain it in pretty much the same way it's explained on the globe Earth. Remember, for *most* things UA is indistinguishable from a gravitational field.

Specifically: General relativity says that a UNIFORM acceleration is indistinguishable (by any means) from a UNIFORM gravitational field.

So any flaws in UA must be due to NON-UNIFORMITY.

Hence:

* UA's uniform acceleration cannot reproduce the changes in gravity at equator and poles.
* It cannot reproduce tidal effects.
* It cannot reproduce changes in gravity due to altitude.

All three of those things depend on the fact that gravity can only be considered uniform over small distances - gravity decreases as the square of the distance from the source - UA does not.

Hence UA can be disproved - but only by examining large scale artifacts.

Most of the FE'ers actually do believe in gravity (of a sort) - claiming that the stars and the moon have a gravitational pull in order to explain changes in gravity with altitude and (they claim) to explain tides.

Sadly:

1) the explanation for tides predicts just one high tide per day - and we really get TWO.
2) the explanation for the variation of gravity with altitude would not follow the inverse square law.

The second point requires a little explanation:

In RET - gravity is proportional to 1/d2 (d being distance between object and center of earth) - which is 1/(R+h)2 - with R being the radius of the earth and h being your height above mean-sea-level.

In FET - if the stars are pulling us upwards with UA producing fake gravity DOWNWARDS - then the equation would be  UAg-1/(S-h)2 (where UAg is the acceleration due to UA, S is the altitude of the stars and h is your height above mean-sea-level.

The difference between these equations produces a different gravity-versus-altitude curve for RET and FET - which could be demonstrated by someone with an accurate weighing machine and a sufficiently smooth-flying airplane that wouldn't vibrate the experiment too much...maybe a high altitude balloon.

All you'd need would be a handful of data points - the two curves are very different.

* In RET, the reduction in gravity per thousand feet of altitude should get less and less with altitude.
* In FET, the reduction in gravity per thousand feet should increase with altitude.

This would be an interesting experiment - it would comprehensively disprove (or not) the UA theory.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 6164
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2017, 09:00:57 AM »
So any flaws in UA must be due to NON-UNIFORMITY.
As always, you inject an untruth early on in your post and try to cover it up with an endless condescending diatribe. It's an extremely poor strategy.

The gravitational pull of the heavens accounts for the extremely small extent of non-uniformity that your tale relies on.

The rest of your post becomes thoroughly worthless since it relies on a false assumption. Except for the part where you baselessly allege that the curves would be different, I guess, but baseless allegations are not worth anyone's time.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:05:04 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 491
    • View Profile
Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2017, 12:16:55 PM »
So any flaws in UA must be due to NON-UNIFORMITY.
As always, you inject an untruth early on in your post and try to cover it up with an endless condescending diatribe. It's an extremely poor strategy.

The gravitational pull of the heavens accounts for the extremely small extent of non-uniformity that your tale relies on.

The rest of your post becomes thoroughly worthless since it relies on a false assumption. Except for the part where you baselessly allege that the curves would be different, I guess, but baseless allegations are not worth anyone's time.

So, if what you're saying is true, wouldn't the non-uniformity change as the stars moved across the sky? Further, isn't it odd that mountain ranges appear to cause gravitational anomalies?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 365
    • View Profile
Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2017, 03:02:05 PM »

The gravitational pull of the heavens accounts for the extremely small extent of non-uniformity that your tale relies on.

By raising your elevation a few thousand feet, the amount closer you are to stars and other far distant celestial objects is insignificant. Besides, which stars are you closer to? At the same time you moving closer to some, you are moving farther from others.

Do you believe that stars are hundreds or thousands of light years away? If yes, then moving a few thousand feet is not relevant.

Do you believe the stars are specks of light on a dome 3,000 miles away? If yes, then the specks don't have enough mass to have a gravitational effect.


Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2017, 06:09:32 PM »
So any flaws in UA must be due to NON-UNIFORMITY.
As always, you inject an untruth early on in your post and try to cover it up with an endless condescending diatribe. It's an extremely poor strategy.

Sooo...you're saying that the flaws in UA must be due to something OTHER than non-uniformity?

...or that there are no flaws?   If it's the latter, you're going to have to explain the difference in acceleration at poles and equator...and why there are two high tides per day...and I don't see a way for you to do that.

Quote
The gravitational pull of the heavens accounts for the extremely small extent of non-uniformity that your tale relies on.

OK - so "the heavens" are either (a) a dome or (b) a finite flat plane or (c) an infinite flat plane?

If so:

a) A dome would pull things laterally more strongly the closer you get to the Ice Wall - which would result in ships and planes (at quadrillions of tons of ocean) being pulled inexorably towards the ice wall.    Since THAT doesn't happen, we'll have to go with (b).

b) A finite flat plane would have the opposite effect - if you were somewhere out by the Ice Wall, the heavens would mostly be on one side of you and would bend the local gravity vector AWAY from the ice wall - same problem.

c) An infinite flat plane - would have the mathematical properties I described in my post - which doesn't match what we see in reality.
   1/(R+h)2 cannot equal UAg-1/(S-h)2.

Quote
The rest of your post becomes thoroughly worthless since it relies on a false assumption. Except for the part where you baselessly allege that the curves would be different, I guess, but baseless allegations are not worth anyone's time.

What you mean is that you ran out of good arguments and/or mathematical understanding.

How about you CAREFULLY explain what's wrong with my math when is say that the curves would be different....let's walk through the math together and see who's right.   Math doesn't lie.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2017, 11:17:02 AM »
Sometimes I hear people saying that the earth is in the goldilock zone, but my God the flat earth is the mother of all goldilocks ;D
Gravitational effects have to be explained by "heavenly bodies" not too far and not too close and just shaped right to mimic the effect of a round earth.
Observations of the sun and moon have to be explained by a paradoxical magic perspective  (the mystery of the trinity is peanuts, in comparison) that works just right to mimic the effect of a round earth. 
Observations of the stars have to be explained by celestial gears, pulls and levers, just right to mimic the effect of a round earth...
What else? ;D