-
Hi All,
I'm new here.. So I'll begin in saying that I come to this forum with much curiosity. I Never disqualify any theory as i believe that a lot of theories even if might not be true to the full, always have some facts that are true and might be the next ground breaking science.
I Find the F.E Theory quite fascinating although I'm yet to be convinced that it is the actual reality we live in.
I do however love hearing of different approaches to life as we know (Or think we know) them.
My question to the F.E. community is regarding the Earth's gravity.
I I Understood correctly, the assumption is that the gravity is actually an illusion and actually Earth is being pushed by a dark matter at the rate of 9.8 meters per second hence generating the illusion of everything being pushed down.
I Can understand the physics of such concept and Can understand that the movement will not be felt as we spend our entire existence here and our bodies are used to it.
So This theory of gravity actually fits quite nicely with the fact that dropping two objects of different size and weight actually drop down at the same rate..
But these are things that i fail to match to the F.E. Gravity Theory:
- Please elaborate on the concept of a parachute... If someone uses a parachute to drop from a plain, what actually should happen is that the fall would remain the same speed regardless of the fraction and "push" force generated on the parachute.
I Thought maybe the concept here might be the the inertia of earth is pushing air up thus making the parachute to be pushed up making the illusion of "falling" slowly.. but i'm not quite convinced with this theory.
- Please elaborate on the concept of two objects tied one to another with a rope while the rope is fixed to something in the middle. if indded the gravity was the movement of earth up, still the two object will create the illusion of falling down in parallel lines yet the reality is that both object will be pulled to one another by the rope which physically proves that there is a force pulling the object down rather than being pushed towards the objects.
Thanks for your time :)
Can't wait to hear your suggestions.
Regards,
Segev
-
Hi Segev,
I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the Equivalence Principle (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle) - it should provide at least an intuitive understanding of why these situations would be identical.
Please elaborate on the concept of a parachute... If someone uses a parachute to drop from a plain, what actually should happen is that the fall would remain the same speed regardless of the fraction and "push" force generated on the parachute.
I Thought maybe the concept here might be the the inertia of earth is pushing air up thus making the parachute to be pushed up making the illusion of "falling" slowly.. but i'm not quite convinced with this theory
The air does indeed accelerate together with the Earth, being pushed up by it. The effect of the parachute is generated by the air resistance or drag.
Please elaborate on the concept of two objects tied one to another with a rope while the rope is fixed to something in the middle. if indded the gravity was the movement of earth up, still the two object will create the illusion of falling down in parallel lines yet the reality is that both object will be pulled to one another by the rope which physically proves that there is a force pulling the object down rather than being pushed towards the objects.
I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Perhaps you could elaborate further so we can try and find the error? The observed effect would be identical both in a gravity and a universal acceleration scenario.
-
The air does indeed accelerate together with the Earth, being pushed up by it. The effect of the parachute is generated by the air resistance or drag.
[/quote]
Let's look at this from the bigger picture down to the smaller.
Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.
Once a person is free from the surface of the earth, through whatever means (but we'll go with an air plane here), they are free from the effects of gravity and are actually waiting for the earth to catch up to them, since there supposedly no gravity and only the effect of the earth rushing up.
Now, if a person jumps out of an air plane, they would not actually be falling but would remain stationary (at the same altitude of the plane they jumped from) waiting for the earth to catch them because, as we've seen, gravity is an effect of the earth rushing up.
Now let's look at the parachute question/answer.
First, since gravity doesn't exist off the surface of the earth, there would be no need for a parachute.
Second, even if the person who jumped from the plane started falling in a zero gravity environment, the parachute would cause a drag situation. How does the drag provided by the parachute account for the force of the earth, rushing up to and hitting a person at 21 miles per hour?
A two ton (1,814 kg) vehicle moving at 21 miles per hour can do considerable damage to the human body, what about a multi million ton earth?
The following is based upon physics within the realm of reality.
An average person weighing 80 kg, falling from 5 meters, at a velocity of 9.8 meters per second, hits a surface with an average force of 39,200 Newtons.
A two ton (1,814 kg) vehicle traveling at 9.8 meters per second, through 5 meters of distance (taken to be analogous to falling), hits a surface with an average force of 1,778,081,620 Newtons.
The Earth, weighing 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg traveling at 9.8 meters per second (also taken to be analogous to falling), through a distance of 5 meters, hits a surface with an average force of 2.9262799999999995e+27 Newtons.
What would actually happen to that unfortunate soul, hanging from the end of a parachute, when the Earth strikes him? Imagine all that force being applied to an area of a few square inches (the feet) and being transferred upward through the body by all the various bones from the feet leading up to the skull. Do you think the person would feel it before they died?
-
Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.
...
No, it is the effect of the earth accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s2. Speed/velocity is different from acceleration. Pretty much everything you say after this is wrong due to this mistake. Especially the stuff about the earth hitting people with a huge amount of force.
All the situations that have been brought up (parachuting, jumping out of a plane, the two objects hanging from a rope) would be affected in the exact same way under gravity and Universal Acceleration. Like SexWarrior said, look up the equivalence principle.
However! That doesn't mean that Universal Acceleration is a perfect replacement for the theory of gravity. The strength of gravity isn't completely constant across the globe. You can measure slight changes in gravity if you climb up a mountain or travel a significant distance north/south. This can't be explained by Universal Acceleration.
-
I I Understood correctly, the assumption is that the gravity is actually an illusion
It is both illusion and fiction. There is no force of gravity.
and actually Earth is being pushed by a dark matter at the rate of 9.8 meters per second hence generating the illusion of everything being pushed down.
Incorrect. The earth is not moving nor is it being pusshed up at 9.8 meters per second.
The apple falls down to the ground because it is more dense than air.
The apple floats on water because it is less dense than water but more dense than air.
Less dense matter rises to the top of more dense matter because there is nowhere else to go.
-
The apple falls down to the ground because it is more dense than air.
The apple floats on water because it is less dense than water but more dense than air.
This is true! You are referring to the concept of buoyancy.
Less dense matter rises to the top of more dense matter because there is nowhere else to go.
Why not sideways? or down? or diagonally? Why is "up" preferred?
Buoyancy only works when there is a pressure gradient in a fluid. Pressure gradients are caused by an outside force or an accelerating reference frame (like gravity, or Universal Acceleration). Gravity/UA causes a downward pressure gradient in air and water. (Basically, this means that pressure decreases as you increase your altitude.) Since the pressure below the object is greater than the pressure above the object, light objects will rise against the gradient (up).
TL;DR: Buoyancy would not work without gravity, UA, or some other somewhat constant downward force. Density would not cause objects to rise or fall.
-
Shalom and welcome to the forum OP.
-
Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.
...
No, it is the effect of the earth accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s2. Speed/velocity is different from acceleration. Pretty much everything you say after this is wrong due to this mistake. Especially the stuff about the earth hitting people with a huge amount of force.
All the situations that have been brought up (parachuting, jumping out of a plane, the two objects hanging from a rope) would be affected in the exact same way under gravity and Universal Acceleration. Like SexWarrior said, look up the equivalence principle.
However! That doesn't mean that Universal Acceleration is a perfect replacement for the theory of gravity. The strength of gravity isn't completely constant across the globe. You can measure slight changes in gravity if you climb up a mountain or travel a significant distance north/south. This can't be explained by Universal Acceleration.
How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s? How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?
But let's get back to the discussion at hand.
The equivalence principal. Your little wiki has a neat little picture of a guy in a rocket and a guy in a room. Both of which are representative of a respective terra firma for each individual, demonstrating the equivalence principle.
As you will notice from my original comment I was discussing an individual who has jumped out of a plane. This person is no longer attached to any type of terra firma and is therefore outside the equivalence principle. He is no longer attached to the plane (analogous to the neat little rocket) and he is no longer attached to the earth (analogous to the neat little box) but is, in fact between the two unaffected by any acceleration. He is, by FE definition of constant acceleration gravity, in zero gravity and waiting for the earth to catch up to him.
-
The atmoplane is affected by acceleration. It is accelerating with us, all of those nitrogen and oxygen atoms. It is literally no different than gravity in RET.
Also, the earth has presumably been accelerating since its formation. It is traveling at a velocity that is some percentage of c.
-
The atmoplane is affected by acceleration. It is accelerating with us, all of those nitrogen and oxygen atoms. It is literally no different than gravity in RET.
Also, the earth has presumably been accelerating since its formation. It is traveling at a velocity that is some percentage of c.
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
Not that I'm doubting you understand it of course. You certainly seem to have given that impression and I'm not calling you a liar.
-
Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.
...
No, it is the effect of the earth accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s2. Speed/velocity is different from acceleration. Pretty much everything you say after this is wrong due to this mistake. Especially the stuff about the earth hitting people with a huge amount of force.
All the situations that have been brought up (parachuting, jumping out of a plane, the two objects hanging from a rope) would be affected in the exact same way under gravity and Universal Acceleration. Like SexWarrior said, look up the equivalence principle.
However! That doesn't mean that Universal Acceleration is a perfect replacement for the theory of gravity. The strength of gravity isn't completely constant across the globe. You can measure slight changes in gravity if you climb up a mountain or travel a significant distance north/south. This can't be explained by Universal Acceleration.
How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s? How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?
But let's get back to the discussion at hand.
The equivalence principal. Your little wiki has a neat little picture of a guy in a rocket and a guy in a room. Both of which are representative of a respective terra firma for each individual, demonstrating the equivalence principle.
As you will notice from my original comment I was discussing an individual who has jumped out of a plane. This person is no longer attached to any type of terra firma and is therefore outside the equivalence principle. He is no longer attached to the plane (analogous to the neat little rocket) and he is no longer attached to the earth (analogous to the neat little box) but is, in fact between the two unaffected by any acceleration. He is, by FE definition of constant acceleration gravity, in zero gravity and waiting for the earth to catch up to him.
First of all, it's 9.8 m/s2. Not 9.8 m/s. I normally dislike being pedantic, but this repeated mistake makes me think you don't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration.
The equivalence principle does not depend on whether someone is touching "terra firma" or not.
First, let's look at an easy example: Bob and Jill are standing on the edge of a cliff. Bob, steps off the cliff! Bob why??? You have so much to live for!!! What happens next according to each theory (gravity, UA)?
1. Gravity: The downward force of gravity is no longer balanced by the upward force exerted by Bob's legs on the earth. Bob accelerates downwards at 9.8 m/s2, to Jill's horror.
2. Universal Acceleration: Bob stops accelerating upwards with the earth, but the earth and Jill don't stop accelerating upwards. From the viewpoint of the horrified Jill, Bob is accelerating downwards away from her at 9.8m/s2(even though it's actually her accelerating upwards away from him).
Either way, Bob ends up as a splotch on the rocks below.
The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.
The point of the equivalence principle is that it is impossible for someone on the earth to tell the difference between a uniform force field and a uniform acceleration. Relative to someone standing on the earth, objects behave in exactly the same way. By the way, the equivalence principle isn't a flat-earth concept. It was originated by Einstein. I wouldn't trust the wiki on this site for an explanation of it. Look it up on wikipedia or somewhere else.
-
The atmoplane is affected by acceleration. It is accelerating with us, all of those nitrogen and oxygen atoms. It is literally no different than gravity in RET.
Also, the earth has presumably been accelerating since its formation. It is traveling at a velocity that is some percentage of c.
So how does UA explain the observed variation in "g" with altitude and latitude?
Also slight variations in gravitation are observed near massive ore bodies and this assists in mineral prospecting. How does UA explain this?
Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
If this is accepted, however do the rotating celestial bodies explain the above non-time variable gravity variations (not anomalies!)?
Also what is the explanation of of these (tiny) celestial objects having gravitational effects on bodies on the earth, yet the tremendously more massive earth has no effect?
Yes, I know! The answers are not in "the Wiki" nor in the "SacredTexts" so you have no idea.
-
How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s? How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?
How fast is the earth moving through space relative to what? Velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference against which we can measure it.
Lot's of people on this forum seem to toss around the theory of relativity without a decent understanding of it. Contrary to popular belief, the earth can happily accelerate for all eternity, assuming:
1. Something continues to push it.
2. There is no friction in the medium it is travelling through. Or if it isn't travelling through a medium period.
-
If this is accepted, however do the rotating celestial bodies explain the above non-time variable gravity variations (not anomalies!)?
This is an excellent point! However, the wording was a bit strange. I would like to try to clarify it, if you don't mind:
We can detect small variations in the strength of gravity. "Celestial Gravitation" is the explanation for this in the UA model.
1. These variations DO NOT change with time.
2. The positions of the heavenly bodies DO change with time.
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that Celestial Gravitation can account for these variations.
-
How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s? How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?
How fast is the earth moving through space relative to what? Velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference against which we can measure it.
Lot's of people on this forum seem to toss around the theory of relativity without a decent understanding of it. Contrary to popular belief, the earth can happily accelerate for all eternity, assuming:
1. Something continues to push it.
2. There is no friction in the medium it is travelling through. Or if it isn't travelling through a medium period.
You say "assuming:
1. Something continues to push it."
Would I be right in assuming that this "Something" must itself be "pushing on something" (action and reaction, and all that jazz - I didn't see any about SR or GR exempting us from that requirement).
So, please carefully explain what FOR that "something" is in.
Also, so much seems to be made of the aether (or is it ether or both?) making a "bow wave" (yes, I know it sounds ridiculous to me). Is this aether in its own FOR or the FOR of the "Something" we are being pushed by.
What I am really getting at is the question of whether or not there is some inertial FOR out there - and be care how you answer because here be dragons.
-
The point of the equivalence principle is that it is impossible for someone on the earth to tell the difference between a uniform force field and a uniform acceleration. Relative to someone standing on the earth, objects behave in exactly the same way. By the way, the equivalence principle isn't a flat-earth concept. It was originated by Einstein. I wouldn't trust the wiki on this site for an explanation of it. Look it up on wikipedia or somewhere else.
Without claiming to having studied in detail all you said, I agree with your explanation of UA.
The bit "uniform force field and a uniform acceleration" you included about EP is telling, because on earth we do not have uniform acceleration.
The simple variation with altitude and latitude can hardly been denied (" the Wiki" calls them anomalies), but
a more questionable variation for Flat Earth followers is the variation in the direction of acceleration as we move from place to place.
A fair bit of detail on this is given in Gravity: from weightlessness to curvature (http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/geometry_force). This is one of the "somewhere elses".
-
Would I be right in assuming that this "Something" must itself be "pushing on something" (action and reaction, and all that jazz - I didn't see any about SR or GR exempting us from that requirement).
Yep! Conservation of momentum and all that jazz.
So, please carefully explain what FOR that "something" is in.
It depends. In the case of rocket-like propulsion, the frame of reference would be the earth.
If it is being pushed by something that isn't being accelerated along with the earth, then the relevant reference frame would probably be the outside "something". As the velocity of the earth relative to the "something" approaches c, it would be increasingly difficult for the "something" to continue pushing the earth.
The most plausible scenario would be some theoretical constant stream of massless particles that constantly accelerates the earth. These particles would have to interact with something in the earth, but be virtually undetectable to us (since no one has ever discovered a constant stream of upward particles). This would also probably imply some source of infinite energy... ok, this is getting a bit over my pay grade now. </ramble>
Also, so much seems to be made of the aether (or is it ether or both?) making a "bow wave" (yes, I know it sounds ridiculous to me). Is this aether in its own FOR or the FOR of the "Something" we are being pushed by.
Who knows. Every flat-earther seems to have a different definition of aether/ether. Generally, the concept of ether implies an absolute reference frame, which would make this whole situation... difficult to explain. To say the least.
To be clear, I am not advocating the existence of UA. Dragons indeed.
The bit "uniform force field and a uniform acceleration" you included about EP is telling, because on earth we do not have uniform acceleration.
Indeed. How unfortunate for the theory of UA. Poor thing, it had so much potential...
-
Would I be right in assuming that this "Something" must itself be "pushing on something" (action and reaction, and all that jazz - I didn't see any about SR or GR exempting us from that requirement).
Yep! Conservation of momentum and all that jazz.
So, please carefully explain what FOR that "something" is in.
It depends. In the case of rocket-like propulsion, the frame of reference would be the earth.
If it is being pushed by something that isn't being accelerated along with the earth, then the relevant reference frame would probably be the outside "something". As the velocity of the earth relative to the "something" approaches c, it would be increasingly difficult for the "something" to continue pushing the earth.
The most plausible scenario would be some theoretical constant stream of massless particles that constantly accelerates the earth. These particles would have to interact with something in the earth, but be virtually undetectable to us (since no one has ever discovered a constant stream of upward particles). This would also probably imply some source of infinite energy... ok, this is getting a bit over my pay grade now. </ramble>
Also, so much seems to be made of the aether (or is it ether or both?) making a "bow wave" (yes, I know it sounds ridiculous to me). Is this aether in its own FOR or the FOR of the "Something" we are being pushed by.
Who knows. Every flat-earther seems to have a different definition of aether/ether. Generally, the concept of ether implies an absolute reference frame, which would make this whole situation... difficult to explain. To say the least.
To be clear, I am not advocating the existence of UA. Dragons indeed.
The bit "uniform force field and a uniform acceleration" you included about EP is telling, because on earth we do not have uniform acceleration.
Indeed. How unfortunate for the theory of UA. Poor thing, it had so much potential...
Those dragons creep in when you start to look at time dilation and find that for only a few tens of years to elapse on the accelerating earth an enormous time must elapse in this inertial FOR - if there is one! . Have a look at this Relativistic Star Ship Calculator (http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)
Since I don't accept the idea of UA, or a Flat Earth at all, I'd better leave it for the Society's experts to handle.
Give me plain simple gravitation, simply to explain how it works, very difficult to explain why it works, but then if you really delve deeply into, are the fundamental reasons for the other forces of nature any easier to explain? A bit over the pay grade for me too, being more of an ex-engineer.
-
The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.
[/quote]
What is causing the plane to accelerate upwards with the earth?
Why does this force not apply to Bob when he steps off the plane?
-
The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.
What is causing the plane to accelerate upwards with the earth?
Good question! Lift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29). Stick your hand out the car window while driving fast. Palm facing down, fingers together. Now rotate your hand so that your palm is slightly facing forwards. Did you feel your hand pushing upwards? Congratulations, your hand just generated lift like an airplane wing!
Why does this force not apply to Bob when he steps off the plane?
Bob doesn't have wings.
-
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)
-
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)
Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.
- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.
So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
-
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)
Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.
- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.
So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
Again, as discussed in the other thread, you are not applying the concepts correctly. Please take a bit to research a bit further so you don't continue to sound so foolish.
-
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)
Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.
- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.
So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.
Again, as discussed in the other thread, you are not applying the concepts correctly. Please take a bit to research a bit further so you don't continue to sound so foolish.
I apologise for making you look foolish, as discussed in the other thread.
-
I apologise for making you look foolish, as discussed in the other thread.
Be careful about tossing out insults. You never know when you might be wrong. For example...
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
Relative to what? Saying "its velocity is such and such" is meaningless without a frame of reference. Regardless of the frame of reference, it won't be faster than the speed of light (see junker's equation).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
Again, relative to what? Length contraction happens to objects moving quickly relative to the observer. Since the observers (us) are on earth, the earth and anything moving slowly relative to the earth won't appear to experience significant length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
Yep! Keep in mind, the object moving quickly can't observe length contraction of itself, because it isn't moving relative to itself.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light
Again, relative to what? Rest mass would remain the same. Relativistic mass would increase relative to some outside fast moving observer, but we wouldn't observe our own relativistic mass increasing.
-
This guy thinks mass = massiveness. Why are yall even wasting your time responding to him.
-
This guy thinks mass = massiveness. Why are yall even wasting your time responding to him.
In general, mass and massiveness refer to the same thing. The distinction he is failing to make is between rest mass and relativistic mass.
-
Ironic that Flat Earthers will openly, actively, vehemently deny science because they can't see it with their own eyes yet they will rely upon science that they absolutely can't see (special relativity) with their own eyes to attempt to bolster and support their fantasy of what they want the world to be.
What is the frame of reference FES uses to determine the acceleration of the Earth?
Since, as has been stated, velocity/acceleration are meaningless without a frame of reference how did FES come to the conclusion that the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 and this constant acceleration is what causes the phenomenon we experience as gravity?
-
I I Understood correctly, the assumption is that the gravity is actually an illusion
It is both illusion and fiction. There is no force of gravity.
and actually Earth is being pushed by a dark matter at the rate of 9.8 meters per second hence generating the illusion of everything being pushed down.
Incorrect. The earth is not moving nor is it being pusshed up at 9.8 meters per second.
The apple falls down to the ground because it is more dense than air.
The apple floats on water because it is less dense than water but more dense than air.
Less dense matter rises to the top of more dense matter because there is nowhere else to go.
But what about Universal Acceleration
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.
This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!
Don't you ever wonder what all those blokes from old Henry Cavendish right up to the present day measured?
What they did was to measur the Universal Gravitational Constant - that directly measure gravitation!
And it's really a tough sort of experiment to get right, since gravitation is so incredibly weak.
Cavendish might have been an odd sort of bloke, but he was a wizard at doing measurents and got to within 1% of the modern value of "G".
After all that evidence that gravitation is real and measurable, you can come along with absolutely no evidence at all and deny the lot.
Now I can guess the reaction to this. But I'll answer that when it comes.
Seems a tad unreasonable to me!
-
But what about Universal Acceleration
Shoddy controlled opposition.
Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!
You reveal too much.
-
But what about Universal Acceleration
Shoddy controlled opposition.
Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!
You reveal too much.
So TFES is Shoddy controlled opposition? Just what would Junker think?
"You reveal too much." about what? You've got me mystified!
By the way how does your "denspressure theory" (or whatever you call it) know what direction to call "down"? Know something, we call that gravity!
-
Ironic that Flat Earthers will openly, actively, vehemently deny science because they can't see it with their own eyes yet they will rely upon science that they absolutely can't see (special relativity) with their own eyes to attempt to bolster and support their fantasy of what they want the world to be.
What is the frame of reference FES uses to determine the acceleration of the Earth?
Since, as has been stated, velocity/acceleration are meaningless without a frame of reference how did FES come to the conclusion that the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 and this constant acceleration is what causes the phenomenon we experience as gravity?
We need to be careful when talking about relative acceleration in terms of special relativity. The reason it is called "special" is because it deals with the "special" case of assuming no acceleration. Hence, stuff like the twins' paradox (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4764.msg94280#msg94280).
The earth's frame of reference is used to determine the earth's acceleration. Just because we can't measure our own velocity without an outside frame of reference doesn't mean we can't measure our own acceleration. How do we measure it? Simple: hold a ball in the air and drop it. What happens? It accelerates down at 9.8m/s2. This is easy to measure. Based on this, we can conclude one of 2 things:
1. Our reference frame is accelerating upwards. (Universal Acceleration)
2. The ball is experiencing a downwards force. (gravity)
Since flat-earthers discount the idea of gravity, they choose option 1.
-
Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!
He obviously disagrees with the wiki. This is the type of comment that causes a thread to dissolve into an incomprehensible shouting match, fyi. Please don't.
-
The earth's frame of reference is used to determine the earth's acceleration. Just because we can't measure our own velocity without an outside frame of reference doesn't mean we can't measure our own acceleration. How do we measure it? Simple: hold a ball in the air and drop it. What happens? It accelerates down at 9.8m/s2. This is easy to measure. Based on this, we can conclude one of 2 things:
1. Our reference frame is accelerating upwards. (Universal Acceleration)
2. The ball is experiencing a downwards force. (gravity)
Since flat-earthers discount the idea of gravity, they choose option 1.
I (and others) have tried to point out many times that Universal Acceleration has to be just that "Universal" - all of earth must accelerate at the same rate around 9.8 m/s2.
But, as has been know from before Newton's time the acceleration due to gravitation on the earth ("g") is not a fixed value but varies quite significantly with latitude, altitude and, to a much lesser extent, the proximity of massive ore bodies.
I said a bit more on this in Proof of a round earth: Himawari 8 Satellite Images « Reply #77 on: March 04, 2016, 04:49:57 AM » (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66042.msg1764053#msg1764053) on the "other site".
The Wiki does have some hypotheses for the cause of these variations, but to me they simply do not "hold water".
For me this simply proves that UA is not an adequate explanation for gravity.
But you are certainly correct in asserting that the Globe completely relies on gravitation.
-
The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.
What is causing the plane to accelerate upwards with the earth?
Good question! Lift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29). Stick your hand out the car window while driving fast. Palm facing down, fingers together. Now rotate your hand so that your palm is slightly facing forwards. Did you feel your hand pushing upwards? Congratulations, your hand just generated lift like an airplane wing!
Why does this force not apply to Bob when he steps off the plane?
Bob doesn't have wings.
The plane is airborne because of lift. Lift doesn't account for upward acceleration. In fact, angle of attack accounts for upward, downward or level flight in a plane. Either way the plane has to be moving forward for lift to work and even forward movement isn't enough to guarantee proper lift if the angle of attack is wrong.
Since you've narrowed the difference between Bob and the plane down to wings being the deciding factor, if a plane stops all forward motion why does it fall from the sky? If the angle of attack is incorrect why does it fall from the sky?
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion. Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?
-
The plane is airborne because of lift. Lift doesn't account for upward acceleration.
Yes, it does. In general, there are four forces acting on a plane:
- Lift (up): generated mostly by the wings. The fuselage and engine can contribute a small amount to this depending on the shape of the plane and the angle of attack.
- Weight (down): generated by gravity (or Universal Acceleration, if you are a flat-earther)
- Thrust (forward): generated by the engines.
- Drag (backward): generated by air resistance.
For straight and level flight, these four forces must be balanced. Lift=Weight, Thrust=Drag.
If Lift is greater than weight, the plane accelerates upward. If Lift is less than weight, it accelerates downward. If Thrust is greater than drag, then the plane accelerates forward. If Thrust is less than drag, the plane slows down.
In fact, angle of attack accounts for upward, downward or level flight in a plane.
Yes, changing the angle of attack can change the amount of lift generated by the wings, causing the plane to accelerate up or down. Lift is approximately proportional to the angle of attack.
Either way the plane has to be moving forward for lift to work and even forward movement isn't enough to guarantee proper lift if the angle of attack is wrong.
Yes, the wings only generate lift if the plane is moving forward. Lift is approximately proportional to the speed of the plane squared.
Since you've narrowed the difference between Bob and the plane down to wings being the deciding factor, if a plane stops all forward motion why does it fall from the sky? If the angle of attack is incorrect why does it fall from the sky?
Yes, wings aren't the only deciding factor. Bob would also need to be able to generate some thrust, either with an engine or by flapping really hard. I thought this was rather obvious, sorry.
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion. Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?
There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.
I guess you were under the assumption that I thought wings by themselves were enough to generate lift. Obviously, the plane must be moving forward at a sufficient speed and have the correct angle of attack for the wings to actually generate lift.
The plane has sufficient airspeed to allow the wings to generate lift. Bob doesn't have wings (for lift) or an engine (for thrust to maintain airspeed to generate lift). Hence, Bob falls when he steps off the plane.
-
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion. Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?
There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.
The 'magical force' he refers to is not lift, it is Universal Acceleration. As in: If UA really is Universal, why does the airplane NOT experience UA while airborne? Why do I not experience UA while standing on the earth? Shouldn't I be accelerating upward at the same 9.8 m/s2 as the earth is, and thus NOT feel gravity? Why is it only the flat earth that gets accelerated?
-
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion. Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?
There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.
The 'magical force' he refers to is not lift, it is Universal Acceleration. As in: If UA really is Universal, why does the airplane NOT experience UA while airborne? Why do I not experience UA while standing on the earth? Shouldn't I be accelerating upward at the same 9.8 m/s2 as the earth is, and thus NOT feel gravity? Why is it only the flat earth that gets accelerated?
No, he is definitely referring to lift, although he might not know it himself.
Assuming UA is true*:
You do experience UA while standing on the ground. Like you said: you are being accelerated upward, pushed by the earth, at the same rate as the earth (9.8m/s2). This provides the exact same sensation of weight as gravity. Have you ever heard of someone in a race car or fighter jet experiencing a certain amount of "G's"? Two G's means they are experiencing an acceleration that feels like twice that of gravity (19.6m/s2).
The same applies to the airplane accelerating up with the earth. The only difference is that instead of being directly pushed (accelerated) up by the earth, it is being pushed (accelerated) up by lift from the wings.
When poor Bob steps out of the plane, he is no longer being pushed up by the earth or by the lift from the plane. Therefore, he is no longer being accelerated up along with the earth. Therefore, he accelerates down towards the earth (or the earth accelerates up towards him, depending on your perspective).
* I don't actually believe UA to be true. There are plenty of other ways to disprove it.
-
No, you see, if UA were truly UNIVERSAL then it would accelerate me even when I am no longer in contact with the earth, as it apparently accelerates the moon and sun and all the other not-attached-to-earth celestial objects we never catch up to. But it does no such thing.
-
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion. Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?
There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.
The 'magical force' he refers to is not lift, it is Universal Acceleration. As in: If UA really is Universal, why does the airplane NOT experience UA while airborne? Why do I not experience UA while standing on the earth? Shouldn't I be accelerating upward at the same 9.8 m/s2 as the earth is, and thus NOT feel gravity? Why is it only the flat earth that gets accelerated?
No, he is definitely referring to lift, although he might not know it himself.
Assuming UA is true*:
You do experience UA while standing on the ground. Like you said: you are being accelerated upward, pushed by the earth, at the same rate as the earth (9.8m/s2). This provides the exact same sensation of weight as gravity. Have you ever heard of someone in a race car or fighter jet experiencing a certain amount of "G's"? Two G's means they are experiencing an acceleration that feels like twice that of gravity (19.6m/s2).
The same applies to the airplane accelerating up with the earth. The only difference is that instead of being directly pushed (accelerated) up by the earth, it is being pushed (accelerated) up by lift from the wings.
When poor Bob steps out of the plane, he is no longer being pushed up by the earth or by the lift from the plane. Therefore, he is no longer being accelerated up along with the earth. Therefore, he accelerates down towards the earth (or the earth accelerates up towards him, depending on your perspective).
* I don't actually believe UA to be true. There are plenty of other ways to disprove it.
No. I'm definitely not referring to lift. You're concentrating on lift at the expense of the magical force that somehow gives us the perspective of gravity.
If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it. This displacement of air should cause some measureable effect on a body, any body, within the realm of displacement. This concept is readily seen in a vertical wind tunnel, the type any person can pay money to get into to approximate the experience of skydiving. You contend that, because we don't have wings, humans are doomed to free fall through air. Yet I can step into a vertical wind tunnel, with no special apparatus, and experience a situation in which I am not freely falling through air, simply through the interaction of displaced air acting on the surface area of my body.
-
No, you see, if UA were truly UNIVERSAL then it would accelerate me even when I am no longer in contact with the earth, as it apparently accelerates the moon and sun and all the other not-attached-to-earth celestial objects we never catch up to. But it does no such thing.
Oh, I see what you mean. Why does UA accelerate the earth and celestial bodies but not stuff on the earth? No idea. I guess that's just part of the "theory"...
-
If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it.
Why would there be? The air would be pushed up by the ground, accelerating at the exact same rate as the ground, and moving at the exact same rate as the ground. The air would NOT be moving relative to the ground. Just like someone standing on the ground would not be moving relative to the ground. You can think of the air as "standing" on the ground.
This displacement of air should cause some measureable effect on a body, any body, within the realm of displacement. This concept is readily seen in a vertical wind tunnel, the type any person can pay money to get into to approximate the experience of skydiving. You contend that, because we don't have wings, humans are doomed to free fall through air. Yet I can step into a vertical wind tunnel, with no special apparatus, and experience a situation in which I am not freely falling through air, simply through the interaction of displaced air acting on the surface area of my body.
Yes, terminal velocity is a thing, but I'm not sure what it has to do with UA. Reaching terminal velocity requires moving so fast relative to the air, that your vertical drag from the air cancels out the force of gravity (or UA). When Bob steps out of the airplane, he is initially NOT moving vertically relative to the air. Therefore, he will have no vertical drag, and will not be at terminal velocity. Therefore, he will fall.
You're concentrating on lift at the expense of the magical force that somehow gives us the perspective of gravity.
The "magical force" is just an upwards accelerating reference frame. Everything in that reference frame would appear to be accelerating down in comparison. The objects in this reference frame would appear to behave exactly as if there was a constant downward force acting on them. Like gravity.
-
If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it.
Why would there be? The air would be pushed up by the ground, accelerating at the exact same rate as the ground, and moving at the exact same rate as the ground. The air would NOT be moving relative to the ground. Just like someone standing on the ground would not be moving relative to the ground. You can think of the air as "standing" on the ground.
So designers of things such as rockets, airplanes and automobiles don't have to do any calculations or take air displacement into account when designing their respective products since the air in front of each item is simply moving along with said item?
-
[/quote]
Yes, terminal velocity is a thing, but I'm not sure what it has to do with UA. Reaching terminal velocity requires moving so fast relative to the air, that your vertical drag from the air cancels out the force of gravity (or UA). When Bob steps out of the airplane, he is initially NOT moving vertically relative to the air. Therefore, he will have no vertical drag, and will not be at terminal velocity. Therefore, he will fall.
What the hell is this even supposed to mean?
If vertical drag cancels out the force of gravity then Bob would be floating in mid air. You've already stated that Bob falls because he doesn't have wings. Now your stating that, as long as he hits terminal velocity, he can cancel out the effects of gravity and float?
-
The "magical force" is just an upwards accelerating reference frame. Everything in that reference frame would appear to be accelerating down in comparison. The objects in this reference frame would appear to behave exactly as if there was a constant downward force acting on them. Like gravity.
[/quote]
This goes directly back to my initial statement.
"Once a person is free from the surface of the earth, through whatever means (but we'll go with an air plane here), they are free from the effects of gravity and are actually waiting for the earth to catch up to them, since there supposedly no gravity and only the effect of the earth rushing up."
-
If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it.
Why would there be? The air would be pushed up by the ground, accelerating at the exact same rate as the ground, and moving at the exact same rate as the ground. The air would NOT be moving relative to the ground. Just like someone standing on the ground would not be moving relative to the ground. You can think of the air as "standing" on the ground.
So designers of things such as rockets, airplanes and automobiles don't have to do any calculations or take air displacement into account when designing their respective products since the air in front of each item is simply moving along with said item?
No. Airplanes/rockets/cars are moving through the air, not with the air. In the flat-earth UA scenario, the earth is not moving through the air. It is moving through space (presumably), and the air is being pushed along in front of the earth. Sometimes some kind of "firmament" is mentioned that keeps the air trapped next to the earth.
Yes, terminal velocity is a thing, but I'm not sure what it has to do with UA. Reaching terminal velocity requires moving so fast relative to the air, that your vertical drag from the air cancels out the force of gravity (or UA). When Bob steps out of the airplane, he is initially NOT moving vertically relative to the air. Therefore, he will have no vertical drag, and will not be at terminal velocity. Therefore, he will fall.
What the hell is this even supposed to mean?
If vertical drag cancels out the force of gravity then Bob would be floating in mid air. You've already stated that Bob falls because he doesn't have wings. Now your stating that, as long as he hits terminal velocity, he can cancel out the effects of gravity and float?
No, I didn't say he could float. I said he will stop accelerating. Acceleration = change in speed. Terminal velocity (speed) is the maximum speed at which someone will fall through the air, because if they go any faster, air resistance will push back stronger than gravity/UA pulls them down, which prevents them from accelerating further. They will continue moving downwards though.
The "magical force" is just an upwards accelerating reference frame. Everything in that reference frame would appear to be accelerating down in comparison. The objects in this reference frame would appear to behave exactly as if there was a constant downward force acting on them. Like gravity.
This goes directly back to my initial statement.
"Once a person is free from the surface of the earth, through whatever means (but we'll go with an air plane here), they are free from the effects of gravity and are actually waiting for the earth to catch up to them, since there supposedly no gravity and only the effect of the earth rushing up."
Assuming they step out of the plane, yes. If they are still in the plane, then the lift produced by the plane causes the sensation of gravity.
-
If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it.
Why would there be? The air would be pushed up by the ground, accelerating at the exact same rate as the ground, and moving at the exact same rate as the ground. The air would NOT be moving relative to the ground. Just like someone standing on the ground would not be moving relative to the ground. You can think of the air as "standing" on the ground.
So designers of things such as rockets, airplanes and automobiles don't have to do any calculations or take air displacement into account when designing their respective products since the air in front of each item is simply moving along with said item?
No. Airplanes/rockets/cars are moving through the air, not with the air. In the flat-earth UA scenario, the earth is not moving through the air. It is moving through space (presumably), and the air is being pushed along in front of the earth. Sometimes some kind of "firmament" is mentioned that keeps the air trapped next to the earth.
Yes, terminal velocity is a thing, but I'm not sure what it has to do with UA. Reaching terminal velocity requires moving so fast relative to the air, that your vertical drag from the air cancels out the force of gravity (or UA). When Bob steps out of the airplane, he is initially NOT moving vertically relative to the air. Therefore, he will have no vertical drag, and will not be at terminal velocity. Therefore, he will fall.
What the hell is this even supposed to mean?
If vertical drag cancels out the force of gravity then Bob would be floating in mid air. You've already stated that Bob falls because he doesn't have wings. Now your stating that, as long as he hits terminal velocity, he can cancel out the effects of gravity and float?
No, I didn't say he could float. I said he will stop accelerating. Acceleration = change in speed. Terminal velocity (speed) is the maximum speed at which someone will fall through the air, because if they go any faster, air resistance will push back stronger than gravity/UA pulls them down, which prevents them from accelerating further. They will continue moving downwards though.
The "magical force" is just an upwards accelerating reference frame. Everything in that reference frame would appear to be accelerating down in comparison. The objects in this reference frame would appear to behave exactly as if there was a constant downward force acting on them. Like gravity.
This goes directly back to my initial statement.
"Once a person is free from the surface of the earth, through whatever means (but we'll go with an air plane here), they are free from the effects of gravity and are actually waiting for the earth to catch up to them, since there supposedly no gravity and only the effect of the earth rushing up."
Assuming they step out of the plane, yes. If they are still in the plane, then the lift produced by the plane causes the sensation of gravity.
Space is not empty. There is still mass that has to be displaced for the FE to accelerate through it.
You certainly said nothing in regards to Bob's acceleration. You stated that since he isn't at terminal velocity that he would fall. Following the logic of this statement, as soon as he hits terminal velocity he will no longer fall and will in fact be floating. You also stated that the drag created by Bob's body will cancel the effects of gravity which also lead to a condition of floating.
The lift of the plane causes the sensation of gravity? If this were the case then every single movement command input by the pilot would be noticeably felt by the passengers. Every instance of increase in altitude would be felt as more gravity. Every instance in decrease in altitude would be felt as less gravity. This is clearly not the case.
-
Space is not empty. There is still mass that has to be displaced for the FE to accelerate through it.
I agree. Flat-earthers probably wouldn't though, considering they claim all space missions to be faked.
You certainly said nothing in regards to Bob's acceleration.
Not explicitly. Sorry. I DID talk about gravity and drag, both of which are forces. Forces cause acceleration. No force = no acceleration. Look up Newton's laws.
You stated that since he isn't at terminal velocity that he would fall. Following the logic of this statement, as soon as he hits terminal velocity he will no longer fall and will in fact be floating.
No, that isn't good logic. (A) implies (B) does not imply (not A) implies (not B). That was a confusing statement, so I will give an example:
Getting hit by a rock causes pain. Does that mean you will never feel pain if you don't get hit by a rock? Of course not. There are other things that cause pain besides rocks.
You also stated that the drag created by Bob's body will cancel the effects of gravity which also lead to a condition of floating.
No, it will lead to the condition of not accelerating. There is a difference between speed and acceleration. You can have lots of speed without any acceleration. When you are at terminal velocity, you have lots of downward speed relative to the air, but no downward acceleration. You are moving fast, but you aren't increasing your speed anymore.
The lift of the plane causes the sensation of gravity? If this were the case then every single movement command input by the pilot would be noticeably felt by the passengers. Every instance of increase in altitude would be felt as more gravity. Every instance in decrease in altitude would be felt as less gravity. This is clearly not the case.
But it IS the case! Have you ever been on a plane before? When you are taking off, you feel like you are being pressed back into your seat. It feels like gravity increased. When turbulence causes the plane to drop a few feet, it feels like you are suddenly being lifted from your seat. It feels like gravity briefly decreased. Also, it feels like your lunch wants to crawl back out your esophagus.
This is the point I have been trying to make. An accelerating reference frame feels exactly the same as a force in the opposite direction for those inside the reference frame. An airplane at takeofff is accelerating upwards and forwards. To the passengers, it feels like a force is pushing them down and back into their seats.
-
My brain hurts trying to follow this illustration ;D
Universal Acceleration seems like ridiculous band-aid.
There is another reason things go down and up, but I don't think it's a property endowed by virtue of mass.
How does Earth, which is basically God knows how many layers of different elements, fluid, solids, etc, have an exact center? How do we know this center is more dense than the surface? Why would things move exactly perpendicular time and time again, instead of when near a mountain, somewhat towards it.
Density explains which things go up or down, but not why. I am completely dissatisfied with Newtonian or "Einstein" hypothetical Gravity.
-
My brain hurts trying to follow this illustration ;D
Universal Acceleration seems like ridiculous band-aid.
There is another reason things go down and up, but I don't think it's a property endowed by virtue of mass.
How does Earth, which is basically God knows how many layers of different elements, fluid, solids, etc, have an exact center? How do we know this center is more dense than the surface? Why would things move exactly perpendicular time and time again, instead of when near a mountain, somewhat towards it.
Density explains which things go up or down, but not why. I am completely dissatisfied with Newtonian or "Einstein" hypothetical Gravity.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66529.msg1774510#msg1774510 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66529.msg1774510#msg1774510)
We know about the solid and liquid core because of how tremor waves from earthquakes are refracted by them, causing bands at a certain distances from the epicenter where no tremors are detected. We also know about the inside of the earth because we use our seismographs to triangulate anomalies in the mantle. That field is known as seismic tomography.
-
My brain hurts trying to follow this illustration ;D
Yeah, we definitely took the long way around, since I was trying to answer his specific objections.
Universal Acceleration seems like ridiculous band-aid.
I agree.
There is another reason things go down and up, but I don't think it's a property endowed by virtue of mass.
If you have a better theory, we would love to hear it. Until then, I'll stick with the tried and tested theory (gravity), thank you very much.
Why would things move exactly perpendicular time and time again, instead of when near a mountain, somewhat towards it.
Because as big as mountains are, they are tiny compared to the earth. Here's the great thing about gravity: we have actual equations capable of making actual predictions (as opposed to anything flat-earth related). I did a rough calculation of the strength of gravity from an 8000 meter tall mountain made of granite for someone standing 8000 meters away: 0.002 m/s2. That's roughly 5000 times less than earth's gravity. If you have an instrument capable of detecting that tiny of a deflection, you are welcome to go and test it out!
-
There is another reason things go down and up, but I don't think it's a property endowed by virtue of mass.
If you have a better theory, we would love to hear it. Until then, I'll stick with the tried and tested theory (gravity), thank you very much.
Even Newton suggested it absurd that mass by virtue of being massive can exert a force through a vacuum. There is a medium. Modern physics is leaning towards everything being a field.
How can space (vacuum) be nothing? There has to be a medium by which the electromagnetic and nuclear forces are transferred. If space was nothing, including the space between an electron and the nucleus of an atom, everything would collapse.
So the effect might be the same -- things falling at 9.8m/s2 until a terminal velocity due to atmospheric resistence. But I don't believe the Earth being big is the reason why.
Why would things move exactly perpendicular time and time again, instead of when near a mountain, somewhat towards it.
Because as big as mountains are, they are tiny compared to the earth. Here's the great thing about gravity: we have actual equations capable of making actual predictions (as opposed to anything flat-earth related). I did a rough calculation of the strength of gravity from an 8000 meter tall mountain made of granite for someone standing 8000 meters away: 0.002 m/s2. That's roughly 5000 times less than earth's gravity. If you have an instrument capable of detecting that tiny of a deflection, you are welcome to go and test it out!
[/quote]
But why no anomaly? Is the Earth so perfectly homogeneous? Has it been proven to be so? Why would the center of mass be perfectly perpendicular to the core? Is it that much more dense and somehow more massive then all of the rest of the mass on Earth? Does the sloshing molten metal have a pull to it?
It doesn't make sense if a particle is attracted to every other particle inversely proportional to the distance that everything would perfectly want to be drawn to the center of the sphere.
Are you familiar with the Tamarack Mines Experiments (http://www.phy.mtu.edu/alumni/history/DMGPlumbLines.pdf)?
-
Even Newton suggested it absurd that mass by virtue of being massive can exert a force through a vacuum. There is a medium. Modern physics is leaning towards everything being a field.
No offense, but I sincerely doubt you have a very thorough knowledge of QFT. I don't really know much about QFT either. A poor understanding of a very complicated theory is a recipe for bad conclusions. For example...
How can space (vacuum) be nothing? There has to be a medium by which the electromagnetic and nuclear forces are transferred. If space was nothing, including the space between an electron and the nucleus of an atom, everything would collapse.
So the effect might be the same -- things falling at 9.8m/s2 until a terminal velocity due to atmospheric resistence. But I don't believe the Earth being big is the reason why.
As far as I know, your arguments against the existence of a true vacuum are correct, depending on how you define a "medium". However, I fail to see the connection between that and the implausibility of mass being the cause of gravity. In fact, gravity is very well defined as a classical field associated with a mass.
Disclaimer: As far as I know, gravity isn't well understood under QFT. Anyone who figures this out is pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize. That doesn't mean that there is any evidence that gravity isn't associated with mass.
But why no anomaly? Is the Earth so perfectly homogeneous? Has it been proven to be so? Why would the center of mass be perfectly perpendicular to the core? Is it that much more dense and somehow more massive then all of the rest of the mass on Earth? Does the sloshing molten metal have a pull to it?
Of course there are anomalies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world). You can personally detect the anomalies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world) with a cheap lab scale (http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-0-01oz-Digital-Back-Lit-Display/dp/B010HKEDPK). Of course the earth isn't perfectly homogeneous. The earth is approximately spherically symmetric, but definitely NOT homogeneous.
How did it become spherically symmetric? Because gravity naturally lends itself to creating spherically symmetric objects. Everything tends to gravitate towards the densest part. Heavy elements tend to sink down towards the middle. Lighter stuff tends to float towards the top. This results in roughly spherically symmetric layers. Also, the stuff in the middle is under a lot of pressure from the stuff around it, making it more dense.
It doesn't make sense if a particle is attracted to every other particle inversely proportional to the distance that everything would perfectly want to be drawn to the center of the sphere.
How good are you at calculus? It makes perfect sense. See the shell theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem).
Are you familiar with the Tamarack Mines Experiments (http://www.phy.mtu.edu/alumni/history/DMGPlumbLines.pdf)?
Thanks for this. I had vaguely heard of it, but never read any details. I can think of two explanations of the results off the top of my head:
1. Static charge built up on the bobs caused them to repulse each other.
2. Gravitational attraction to the edges of the mine shaft.
I have no idea if these explanations would survive the actual calculations, but they seem plausible. I would hope that the author of the paper took into account these possible explanations, but I don't see them mentioned in the paper.
Also, I still don't see how this is evidence that gravity isn't a function of mass. Interesting experiment nonetheless.
-
Here is a paper about the Tamarak Mine experiment (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm), with some theories. Gravitational attraction to the shaft walls is considered and rejected, due to the small masses involved. More likely suspects include voltage induced in over a mile of steel wire, Coriolis effect, and air currents. No firm conclusions are drawn, and there seems to have never been another comparable experiment performed (deep straight holes in the ground, not that common)