The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Ptolmey on December 07, 2020, 10:38:05 PM
-
Does the Earth rest on a solid foundation or does it float in space?
-
Assuming the Earth is suspended in space, or 'floating,' it would be the only flat or disc shaped celestial body in the universe of substantial size. Why is our Earth the exception? Whether blowing a bubble, or observing a drop of water, or watching a lava lamp, we find that all liquids, and gasses, including planets while still molten, and stars, form into ball shapes. When someone can demonstrate they can blow a flat bubble, FE theory will have advanced beyond the farcically ridiculous.
-
If you read the wiki here you’ll find this site maintains the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.
I’ll leave you to read for yourself and ponder the implications of the idea, but neither “resting on a foundation” nor “floating in space” apply to this notion. I’m making no comment at this time.
-
...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.
If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs. There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity. BTW, 'up' would have no meaning.
But you are still not accounting for the issue about the shape of the earth. Since you agree the Earth is not set on a foundation, but is detached, thus whether floating or accelerating it still would take the shape of every other large mass and be a globe. Blow a flat bubble and prove me wrong.
-
But you are still not accounting for the issue about the shape of the earth. Since you agree the Earth is not set on a foundation, but is detached, thus whether floating or accelerating it still would take the shape of every other large mass and be a globe. Blow a flat bubble and prove me wrong.
I’m not accounting for or agreeing with anything. I only told you what you’ll find in the wiki, not what I think about it, nor whether I’ll blow any bubbles. Read a few threads as well as the FAQ and you’ll get a better feel for this place and the characters who may be found, as well as the opinions voiced and argued over. Four days since you joined is not enough to understand what sort of forum this is. Good luck!
-
...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.
If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs. There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity. BTW, 'up' would have no meaning.
You may be confusing "acceleration" and "velocity". Humans have no means of detecting velocity (although we sometimes think we can, from clues such as perception of relative movement, engine noise, wind on our face etc). We can, however detect acceleration, using our sense of feeling, sense of self and our inner-ear thingies. When the aeroplane, passengers, chairs and napkins are all travelling at 400 mph then, yes, there is no perception of velocity. When the First Officer bounces the thing onto the runway, however, that is an acceleration of the aeroplane, and all the passengers, chairs and plates feel it.
The FE concept is that UA is accelerating the Earth, and celestial objects at 9.8 m/s/s but not (for some reason) people, animals, buildings, chairs and napkins. So the FE concept of what we Globies call gravity, is that everything on the planet is being pushed up by the earth and that is the effect we feel as gravity.
And as Longtitube said, don't think that everyone who posts on this site is a Flattie; its a forum.
-
...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.
If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs. There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity. BTW, 'up' would have no meaning.
You may be confusing "acceleration" and "velocity". Humans have no means of detecting velocity (although we sometimes think we can, from clues such as perception of relative movement, engine noise, wind on our face etc). We can, however detect acceleration, using our sense of feeling, sense of self and our inner-ear thingies. When the aeroplane, passengers, chairs and napkins are all travelling at 400 mph then, yes, there is no perception of velocity. When the First Officer bounces the thing onto the runway, however, that is an acceleration of the aeroplane, and all the passengers, chairs and plates feel it.
The FE concept is that UA is accelerating the Earth, and celestial objects at 9.8 m/s/s but not (for some reason) people, animals, buildings, chairs and napkins. So the FE concept of what we Globies call gravity, is that everything on the planet is being pushed up by the earth and that is the effect we feel as gravity.
And as Longtitube said, don't think that everyone who posts on this site is a Flattie; its a forum.
Anything that's accelerating is being pushed. Do FE'ers ever speculate as to what's pushing the universe upward.
-
But you are still not accounting for the issue about the shape of the earth. Since you agree the Earth is not set on a foundation, but is detached, thus whether floating or accelerating it still would take the shape of every other large mass and be a globe. Blow a flat bubble and prove me wrong.
I’m not accounting for or agreeing with anything. I only told you what you’ll find in the wiki, not what I think about it, nor whether I’ll blow any bubbles. Read a few threads as well as the FAQ and you’ll get a better feel for this place and the characters who may be found, as well as the opinions voiced and argued over. Four days since you joined is not enough to understand what sort of forum this is. Good luck!
You are making false assumptions. I have debated this issue for years, on this and other forums. I only recently signed up AGAIN with a new user name. So, you take no position on the shape of the Earth. :) We all know this entire 'flat Earth' nonsense is a joke. Obviously, the Earth could not be constantly accelerating because eventually the planet would achieve the speed of light. To hide this fact, the Wiki suggests meaningless formulae in lieu of explanation.
I suggest you focus on the argument and leave the ad hominems alone.
-
Anything that's accelerating is being pushed. Do FE'ers ever speculate as to what's pushing the universe upward.
... or pulling?
-
Anything that's accelerating is being pushed.
False.
-
The speed of light isn’t the only problem with the constant acceleration hypothesis. Aside from the fact that it requires the sun and moon etc to also be accelerating at the same rate, there is also the massive issue of energy. Unlike a centripetal force, where no work is done because force and velocity are orthogonal, a linear acceleration requires energy. Where is the massive energy source for this magical acceleration? What is pushing (or pulling) us? Moreover, because work done is force x velocity, if the earth is accelerating constantly then the energy required to achieve a constant acceleration would actually increase as we went faster. Who or what is controlling this energy source to achieve such perfect linear acceleration?
-
Einstein said that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but he also said that nothing could reach the speed of light. The equations in the Wiki are from Special Relativity, which says that a body can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light. Relative frames of references, etc.
Alternatively, it may also be that there are no speed limits. I don't believe Einstein actually performed any experiments on that.
See these two articles:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment
Summary: "Our light experiments can't see the Earth moving around the Sun. Everything must be moving relative to each other. The only standard is the speed of light, which is consistent, and which everything moves relative to."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment
Summary: "Nooooooo. Those experiments which show SR to be incorrect must be exceptions to the rule."
-
Anything that's accelerating is being pushed. Do FE'ers ever speculate as to what's pushing the universe upward.
... or pulling?
Yes, I should have said pushed or pulled.
-
Einstein said that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but he also said that nothing could reach the speed of light. The equations in the Wiki are from Special Relativity, which says that a body can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light. Relative frames of references, etc.
Alternatively, it may also be that there are no speed limits. I don't believe Einstein actually performed any experiments on that.
See these two articles:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment
Summary: "Our light experiments can't see the Earth moving around the Sun. Everything must be moving relative to each other. The only standard is the speed of light, which is consistent, and which everything moves relative to."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment
Summary: "Nooooooo. Those experiments which show SR to be incorrect must be exceptions to the rule."
Tom, you are mixing up Special and General Relativity. Even if you don't believe gravity exists, the science examines Earth, Sun and the planets in terms of gravitational attraction, so only General Relativity describes their behaviour.
The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.[1] Special relativity applies to all physical phenomena in the absence of gravity. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature.[2] It applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity)
-
The speed of light consistency thing is from SR, and was used to explain why experiment couldn't see the Earth's motion around the Sun. From the MM page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment#Influence_of_the_MiMo_Experiment_on_Relativity
In a lecture titled How I Created the Theory of Relativity (Archive) Albert Einstein points this experiment out as a basis on developing Special Relativity:
“ I was familiar with the strange results of Michelson’s experiment while I was still a student pondering these problems, and instinctively realized that, if we accepted his result as a fact, it would be wrong to think of the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether. This insight actually provided the first route that led me to what we now call the principle of special relativity. I have since come to believe that, although the Earth revolves around the Sun, its motion cannot be ascertained through experiments using light. ”
-
Einstein said that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but he also said that nothing could reach the speed of light. The equations in the Wiki are from Special Relativity, which says that a body can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light. Relative frames of references, etc.
Alternatively, it may also be that there are no speed limits. I don't believe Einstein actually performed any experiments on that.
The reason nothing can travel at or faster than the speed of light, c, is that a body of non zero resting mass would have infinite mass at light speed, and would therefore require infinite force and infinite energy to reach that speed.
This has all been borne out by experiment and observation.
The notion that we are on an ever-accelerating platform is simply not credible. Aside from the issue with the speed of light (and no, relativity does not get you out of it), there is no FET explanation of where the energy required to exert the accelerating force comes from, nor any explanation of what causes the sun, moon and other celestial bodies to accelerate.
-
This has all been borne out by experiment and observation.
What experiment?
-
This has all been borne out by experiment and observation.
What experiment?
Pretty much every day in the large hadron collider.
If you want something more relatable, this is easily demonstrated using a beam of electrons, just like that in an old CRT television, as the force required to 'steer' the beam is slightly larger than you would expect using the unaccelerated mass of an electron - the electrons, travelling at a significant fraction of c, have extra, measurable mass as a result of their speed.
This was first discovered over a century ago - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann_experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann_experiments)
It all ties in with other demonstrable phenomena, such as mass-energy equivalence as seen in nuclear power stations or atomic weapons.
-
What percentage of c do you think someone would measure themselves traveling at after 1000 years on a disc accelerating at 9.8m/s2, SteelyBob? How much do you think they would measure their own mass had increased as a result?
-
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.
Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.
Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours
Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.
This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.
Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.
-
@Clyde Frog - @Longitube beat me to it. You would add roughly 1 x c every year, which is impossible.
@Longitube - maths looks correct to me.
To be frank, there are far bigger issues with the acceleration hypothesis than just the speed of light issue. To accelerate in a straight line requires energy - enormous amounts of ever-increasing energy, in fact. Where is this energy coming from?
-
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.
Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.
Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours
Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.
This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.
Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.
You made a blunder, in that you fundamentally are misunderstanding how relativity works. Let's take the shape of the Earth out of the equation, and just talk about a rocket accelerating through space at 1G. By your math, after about 8500 years, the people on board that rocket would measure their instantaneous velocity to be 99.99% (with probably a fair few more 9's added on, I'm not going to bother working it out because it's meaningless) of c. Yet, what relativity tells us is that the people on board that ship will measure their velocity to still be 0% of c. Because there is no such thing as a preferred frame of reference, you can always pick a frame where that rocket has an instantaneous velocity of 0m/s while still accelerating at 1G for a completely arbitrary amount of time, and the people in that ship would be feeling that steady 1G acceleration the whole time. The people in the rocket ship from this example would be much like people standing on a UA version of the FE, in that they are moving with the accelerating object. An observer on that FE would never exceed c, nor would the FE, because it can never itself move any faster than 0% of c as measured by an observer standing on that FE (since, you know, it's invariant).
And all of that is still glossing over a misapplication of how relativistic velocities are added up, since that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
-
You made a blunder, in that you fundamentally are misunderstanding how relativity works.
They didn't really get that far. They just applied classical mechanics to the problem, because apparently that's how poor public education is these days.
-
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.
Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.
Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours
Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.
This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.
Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.
You made a blunder, in that you fundamentally are misunderstanding how relativity works. Let's take the shape of the Earth out of the equation, and just talk about a rocket accelerating through space at 1G. By your math, after about 8500 years, the people on board that rocket would measure their instantaneous velocity to be 99.99% (with probably a fair few more 9's added on, I'm not going to bother working it out because it's meaningless) of c. Yet, what relativity tells us is that the people on board that ship will measure their velocity to still be 0% of c. Because there is no such thing as a preferred frame of reference, you can always pick a frame where that rocket has an instantaneous velocity of 0m/s while still accelerating at 1G for a completely arbitrary amount of time, and the people in that ship would be feeling that steady 1G acceleration the whole time. The people in the rocket ship from this example would be much like people standing on a UA version of the FE, in that they are moving with the accelerating object. An observer on that FE would never exceed c, nor would the FE, because it can never itself move any faster than 0% of c as measured by an observer standing on that FE (since, you know, it's invariant).
And all of that is still glossing over a misapplication of how relativistic velocities are added up, since that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
By the same argument wouldn't there always be at least one frame of reference where the object does in fact have a measured velocity and in the case of UA that velocity would increase by a factor of C every year?
-
They didn't really get that far. They just applied classical mechanics to the problem, because apparently that's how poor public education is these days.
You still haven't explained where the energy for this acceleration is coming from.
-
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.
Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.
Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours
Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.
This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.
Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.
You made a blunder, in that you fundamentally are misunderstanding how relativity works. Let's take the shape of the Earth out of the equation, and just talk about a rocket accelerating through space at 1G. By your math, after about 8500 years, the people on board that rocket would measure their instantaneous velocity to be 99.99% (with probably a fair few more 9's added on, I'm not going to bother working it out because it's meaningless) of c. Yet, what relativity tells us is that the people on board that ship will measure their velocity to still be 0% of c. Because there is no such thing as a preferred frame of reference, you can always pick a frame where that rocket has an instantaneous velocity of 0m/s while still accelerating at 1G for a completely arbitrary amount of time, and the people in that ship would be feeling that steady 1G acceleration the whole time. The people in the rocket ship from this example would be much like people standing on a UA version of the FE, in that they are moving with the accelerating object. An observer on that FE would never exceed c, nor would the FE, because it can never itself move any faster than 0% of c as measured by an observer standing on that FE (since, you know, it's invariant).
And all of that is still glossing over a misapplication of how relativistic velocities are added up, since that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Then indulge an poor sap who'd like to know more and explain just a little of that. Where, first, does the 8500 year figure come from? Secondly, since there is no preferred frame of reference, please explain how the people in your rocket ship can be said to have an instantaneous velocity of zero while continuing to accelerate at 1G. I really would like to know this, so gnomic pronouncements or sneering from others just won't cut it: I'll take your own words or you can supply links or reading material.
Since the UA concept, or the energy powering UA, makes no sense to me currently, I'd genuinely appreciate a little light. Go for it.
-
Then indulge an poor sap who'd like to know more and explain just a little of that. Where, first, does the 8500 year figure come from?
Well, from you, it was your math. Although I have to admit my mistake when I misread "hours" for "years" so apologies. 8503.4 hours, you said.
Secondly, since there is no preferred frame of reference, please explain how the people in your rocket ship can be said to have an instantaneous velocity of zero while continuing to accelerate at 1G. I really would like to know this, so gnomic pronouncements or sneering from others just won't cut it: I'll take your own words or you can supply links or reading material.
Let's do this by way of analogy first. Imagine you are in a boat (I'd have gone with a car, but shifting gears makes for a separate issue so a boat it is), moving in reverse, and fairly quickly at that. The driver decides to suddenly change direction and try to move forward instead. You feel the boat decelerating, let's just say that's at a constant 1G for fun. It continues to decelerate with respect to the land underneath the boat, and for an instant, it's at rest with respect to the land underneath the boat, and then it begins accelerating forward with respect to the land underneath the boat. At all times, it was applying a steady 1G acceleration as felt by the passenger on the boat, but that boat's velocity changed from negative to zero to positive with respect to the ground below the boat. For a moment, it was accelerating at 1G, and its instantaneous velocity was 0 with respect to the sand and rocks underneath it.
You can define a FoR just like that. In fact, if we're talking about a FE undergoing UA, you absolutely have to define a FoR like that if you want to have a meaningful idea of what an observer (like, for example, all people) on that FE would experience. To even begin discussing the velocity of the FE disc, you have to pick a separate FoR and then try and work out how fast the disc would be moving relative to that frame, but that doesn't really make much sense to do, because you can pick any frame you want and say the disc is moving at any velocity you like up to c and all you've accomplished is doing math. It makes absolutely no impact for anyone on said disc. You can do it with a globe, too. There are objects in space moving insanely rapidly away from the Earth. An observer in one of those frames would see the Earth moving insanely rapidly away from it, and it would infer that it has gained a certain amount of relativistic mass, and it has red shifted by however much, and rulers on Earth have undergone a length contraction such that they look much much shorter, but that doesn't affect me or you or anyone at all because we're here on the surface of the Earth, our colors are perfectly normal and our rulers are the right length.
-
I have to admit my mistake when I misread "hours" for "years" so apologies. 8503.4 hours, you said.
I suspected as much, don’t worry about it.
I understand the boat changing direction at 1g as experienced by its passenger, also length dilation and redshift for an outside observer not being seen by those on a fast-moving Earth. So please go on, what’s next?
-
@Longtitube
As I understand it, this one all comes down to energy, and this is the fundamental issue at the heart of the UA problem. Apologies - my previous answer was probably misleading. It is impossible to accelerate something at 1g forever as far as an external observer is concerned. But from the perspective of the 'something', it can feel 1g forever...the issue is where is the force coming from?
My understanding:
If you got in a spacecraft and had some magic propulsion source that was capable of accelerating you at 1g for as long as you wanted then, just like in our example here, it would take around a year to accelerate up to c. If you were travelling to some distant solar system and your propulsion system could keep providing the thrust, you could indeed keep on accelerating, and it would feel like 1g.
But speed, or more accurately velocity, is always relative. So if you were taking earth as your reference point, then your apparent velocity would never reach c. As far as the crew on the spacecraft are concerned, they would feel the 1g acceleration, and would actually make the journey in a time that felt, to them, as if they were exceeding the speed of light. However, to external observers, it would take far, far longer to reach the destination - a sub-c effective speed, with the difference caused by your ever-increasing mass - the constant thrust required to achieve the 1g would have less and less apparent effect to an external observer because the 'm' in f=ma is increasing all the time. Wikipedia tackles it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration), although there's plenty of examples if you google 'space travel at constant acceleration' - it's quite a well-known proposal, common in sci-fi, as the 1g aspect of it would provide a survivable living environment for the crew. The problem is that you aren't 'travelling' faster than c - it's taking hundreds of thousands of years to get anywhere, even though the crew don't age (as much).
This is why energy becomes so important here, and why I keep asking the question that is, unsurprisingly, not being answered. Where or what is the cause of the force that is propelling earth? The problem is that, unlike centripetal acceleration such as in orbits, linear acceleration is adding kinetic energy to an object, and that energy has to come from somewhere. So the question then is where? What is causing the earth (and the dome over it, and the sun, moon and stars, whatever they may be) to accelerate? It can't come from anything external - that's really important, because the apparent mass of the earth etc would be increasing, and you couldn't accelerate past c from the frame of reference of whatever the external source was. So it has to be endogenous to the earth's accelerating system, and essentially everlasting, and somehow capable of accelerating the moon, sun and stars with it, all of which are rotating as well, due to some other magical unexplained force.
Of course all of this required magic disappears if you just accept what is entirely obvious from hundreds of years of painstaking observation, measurement and calculation, which is that we are on a spherical(ish) globe with a single orbiting moon, part of a solar system of planets with associated moons orbiting the sun, which in turn is part of a much larger galaxy. There is nothing unexplained or mysterious about this system at all - all the calculations work out. We know the distances, speeds, and masses of the various planets and moons. We can calculate planetary positions, eclipses and tides with excellent precision, and they all match perfectly to our understanding of gravity and other physical calculations. Even if, for whatever bizarre reason, you choose to believe that every picture and video of earth taken from space is somehow faked, and that every space rocket, every satellite, every intercontinental ballistic missile even...all of that, by every country who has ever engaged in a space programme...even if you think all of that was just some elaborate theatre involving millions of people and trillions of pounds...the heliocentric globe earth model still provides faultless explanation for every observed motion and force that we can detect ourselves.
-
By the same argument wouldn't there always be at least one frame of reference where the object does in fact have a measured velocity and in the case of UA that velocity would increase by a factor of C every year?
No. In any such hypothetical (good luck devising one in the real world) frame of reference, the acceleration of UA would appear to decrease in magnitude over time.
-
Answering "where the force comes from" is really moving the goal posts. There are unknowns in all things. The force could simply be a fundamental property of the universe in the UA model. Current cosmology claims there is a certain unknown fundamental property of the universe cause it to expand at an ever-increasing rate, and that's not considered controversial in the least.
-
Current cosmology claims there is a certain unknown fundamental property of the universe cause it to expand at an ever-increasing rate, and that's not considered controversial in the least.
But given that this this expansion rate refers to non-existent galaxies that were detected using an orbiting telescope that doesn't exist in the minds of FET proponents, I don't suppose that's an issue! Presumably NASA have fabricated the whole thing to add depth to the massive hoax they are perpetrating? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data)
I think we're broadly in agreement here - you are unable to explain the source of the thrust.
-
Answering "where the force comes from" is really moving the goal posts. There are unknowns in all things. The force could simply be a fundamental property of the universe in the UA model. Current cosmology claims there is a certain unknown fundamental property of the universe cause it to expand at an ever-increasing rate, and that's not considered controversial in the least.
Its shifting the goalposts a bit to be sure, but it gets to a fundamental flaw within FET. I will accept the unknown/unexplained source for the acceleration since you justifiably call to the same kinds of unknowns that are broadly accepted within RE cosmology.
But the whole basis of FET supposedly rests on empirical observations and testable experimentation. FET provides numerous alternate explanations for classic RE hypotheses, based on clever equivalencies that have been pointed out. But they comminly only work for one specific set of observations, rather than fitting with a holistic worldview. Where these deficiencies arise, in many cases, aspects of RE are brought in as a fail safe - like Einstein's Special Relativity to explain why we dont accelerate beyond the speed of light. Or dark energy to explain the origin of electromagnetic acceleration.
FET arose in large part because people wanted to trust their senses and rely on what can be observed and tested. But the 'pseudoscience' of cosmology and astronomy sure seem to come in handy when the limits of FET are questioned.
-
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not appealing to cosmology in what I said, I'm simply showing that there's an analog in terms of it being OK for there to be fundamental properties of the universe that are accepted as such. No matter what you want to try and accept as the nature of the universe, there will at some level be things that are axiomatic. Dark energy, like you mention, is one such thing in cosmology right now. It just... is... and there's no telling what it really is, it's just there making the universe expand faster and faster apparently. But the phrase itself is just a place holder for "some energetic force that no one really knows much about." Move into UA-land, and an accelerator could very well be pretty much the same thing conceptually, although at a different scale.
And to be even more clear, I'm not someone who is even a proponent of UA. But the same tired arguments of "but it would exceed LIGHTSPEED!!!1one!" and "nothing can accelerate FoReVeRrRr because it would need infinity energy" get paraded around a lot at both sites and those arguments just aren't very good.
-
......the acceleration of UA would appear to decrease in magnitude over time.
I admit I'm no theoretical physicist, but I'm curious. Do you say this based on the WIKI Lorentz integration nonsense or is their another part of relativity that describes this.
Did a little looking and think I understand the concept.
-
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not appealing to cosmology in what I said, I'm simply showing that there's an analog in terms of it being OK for there to be fundamental properties of the universe that are accepted as such. No matter what you want to try and accept as the nature of the universe, there will at some level be things that are axiomatic. Dark energy, like you mention, is one such thing in cosmology right now. It just... is... and there's no telling what it really is, it's just there making the universe expand faster and faster apparently. But the phrase itself is just a place holder for "some energetic force that no one really knows much about." Move into UA-land, and an accelerator could very well be pretty much the same thing conceptually, although at a different scale.
And to be even more clear, I'm not someone who is even a proponent of UA. But the same tired arguments of "but it would exceed LIGHTSPEED!!!1one!" and "nothing can accelerate FoReVeRrRr because it would need infinity energy" get paraded around a lot at both sites and those arguments just aren't very good.
Yeah it's absolutely a fair analogy to raise because that's a major double standard that I've seen in what little time I've been here for.
What I was trying to bring up is that there's something of a reciprocation when it come to common FE proponents' responses to some of those belligerent arguments, where examples of experiments are demanded to back up the classical RE theory, or appeals are made to phenomena that lack observational and experimental support. Local variations in gravity vs. UA and EA vs setting sun would be examples where this occurs.
My personal issue with FET isnt the attempts to advocate for a different interpretation of our world, but the dismissal of such broad reaches of scientific advances and achievements. I would find it much easier to embrace if there was more (perceived) effort to integrate modern science into FET. For all the flaws I see in it, based on my background, EA is actually a great example of exactly the kind of efforts i would want to see: bring in understanding from recent advances, rather than dismissal as pseudoscience.
-
For all the flaws I see in it, based on my background, EA is actually a great example of exactly the kind of efforts i would want to see: bring in understanding from recent advances, rather than dismissal as pseudoscience.
The problem here is that it's hard not to dismiss as pseudoscience what is obviously pseudoscience.
-
For all the flaws I see in it, based on my background, EA is actually a great example of exactly the kind of efforts i would want to see: bring in understanding from recent advances, rather than dismissal as pseudoscience.
The problem here is that it's hard not to dismiss as pseudoscience what is obviously pseudoscience.
I think you are misinterpreting his words. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's saying he wishes FE would embrace scientific advances and incorporate them more into their models, as opposed to saying they are part of a hoax or conspiracy.
-
For all the flaws I see in it, based on my background, EA is actually a great example of exactly the kind of efforts i would want to see: bring in understanding from recent advances, rather than dismissal as pseudoscience.
The problem here is that it's hard not to dismiss as pseudoscience what is obviously pseudoscience.
I think you are misinterpreting his words. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's saying he wishes FE would embrace scientific advances and incorporate them more into their models, as opposed to saying they are part of a hoax or conspiracy.
Clyde is right again.
I find a lot of the wiki, for example, to be overly dismissive of a broad range of scientific methods/advances/hypotheses/achievements.
I dont like it, but I applaud the efforts being put forward to advance EA as an alternative explanation for observations. Rather than throwing out tested scientific knowledge, it builds on it, trying to evaluate whether there is indeed a new framework for us to view and understand natural phenomena.
But that probably stems from my geology background, where all our field's major breakthroughs have typically come from stealing and bastardizing techniques from medical and military innovations!