Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2020, 03:15:32 PM »
@fisherman, maybe my understanding of UA isn't correct, but doesn't the Equivalence Principle go something like as follows:
  • In a rocket in space, not moving, I feel weightless.  The equivalent to being in freefall on Earth.
  • In a rocket accelerating upwards, I feel weight.  The equivalent to standing on the surface of the Earth with gravity.
Neglecting wind resistance and other complexities of where the ground is, in the first example, if I had a glass of water and slowly tried to pour it out, it would pretty much just stay in the glass or at least stay relative to my position.  In the second example, the water would pour out onto the surface beneath me.  If Universal Acceleration is considered actual constant upwards acceleration of the Earth (much like the rocket) wouldn't water in a sloping pipe just flow as we expect anyway?

Your understanding of UA is the same as mine...won't necessarily say it is correct, though.  I'll let a FEr weigh in on that.

The important point that the FE explanation misses is that the equivalence principle only applies to objects in free fall. .

Water in a pipe isn't in free fall (because its movement is constrained by the pipe) unless or until to flows out of the end of the pipe.  But there has to be a force that moves it out of the end of the pipe to begin with. Assuming there is no water flowing in from the other end to push it out, if you slope the pipe and there is no gravity to pull the water out of the pipe, it won't go anywhere. No force, no movement.

UA and the EP is an elegant alternative to gravity for objects in free fall, but there are countless effects of gravity that don't involve free fall.  Your feet swell when you are on them all day because blood returning to your heart has to work against gravity. Gravity is partially responsible for why plant roots grow down, trees can only grow so high because rising sap has to work against gravity.

The clearest example I can think of is a rollercoaster.  They are usually gravity driven. Keep in mind, the coaster itself is not in free fall.  It is (hopefully) attached to the ground so it is rising with the surface of the earth and the riders in the cars are rising with it.  If the earth, the coaster and the riders are all rising together as one system, what happens after the chain pulls the riders to the top of the first hill if there is no force to pull the riders down? Nothing.  The whole system will just continue to rise together as the earth rises.

As the whole system rises, there is no relative change in the distance between the top of the hill and the bottom of the hill.  If the riders are at the top of the hill, there is no reason why the relative distance between the riders and the bottom of the hill should change unless there is a force acting on the riders that is not also acting on the rest of the system.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2020, 04:31:55 PM »
Perhaps my understanding of the Equivalence Principle is incorrect as well, which is eminently possible (and I know there are weak, Einsteinian, and strong versions which complicate things further!).  I thought it was the inability to distinguish between being stood on the surface of a massive body, and being inside an accelerated frame of reference - the key word there being "accelerated".

I do get what you are saying, and I considered the whole "all moving as one thing", but like I said, the key word is "accelerated".  A similar analogy could be a ball on the floor of a train.  At a constant velocity, the ball, the train, me, the whole system is traveling at the same rate so everything just stays in the same relative position, doesn't matter what the velocity is.  We can't feel constant motion.  As the train accelerates we are all subject to the same acceleration, I feel the effect of that acceleration but I'm fixed in my seat so I don't move - I'm essentially part of the train.  The ball is not fixed to the floor, it's free to move, and so relative to my direction of travel it appears to roll backwards away from me (falls, in effect).

Is that not the same as your rollercoaster example?  Under UA, everything - the Earth, the rollercoaster, the rollercoaster car, the people strapped in the car are all moving upwards as one system.  If the Earth were just moving up at a constant velocity, in the absence of any other force your last statement would be correct - there would no reason for the riders at the top of the hill to change their position relative to it.  However, if the Earth were accelerating and changing its velocity over time, the car is free to move relative to the track which is fixed to the Earth.  Riders strapped into the car at the top would now effectively roll downhill.  It's the acceleration of the Earth upwards that gives rise to the apparent force acting on the car, i.e. gravity.  This is why they are equivalent, and this is why flat Earth theory uses it in its sub-theory of Universal Acceleration...is my understanding anyway!

I dunno' mate, I might have it all wrong, it's really interesting stuff nevertheless.  It's certainly easier to wrap your head around an accelerating body giving rise to the "effect" of gravity I'll give them that!
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2020, 05:43:51 PM »
Quote
However, if the Earth were accelerating and changing its velocity over time, the car is free to move relative to the track which is fixed to the Earth.  Riders strapped into the car at the top would now effectively roll downhill.

The car is not in free fall. It's movement is constrained by the track and can only move with the track. If the track accelerates, the car accelerates with it. We aren't physically fastened down to the surface of the earth, either, but apparently we accelerate along with the earth according to UA. Its perfectly possible to stand on a steep hill and not "fall down".  That wouldn't be possible if the ground beneath us was constantly accelerating and we were not moving.  No matter how subtle the slope, eventually we'd end up at the bottom.  Again, the equivalence principle doesn't apply when an object is supported in any way.

Also, roller coasters generally don't move exactly vertically .  If the hill is at anything less than a 90 degree angle, there is some horizontal movement that UA can't account for.  Think of a box on any 45 degree inclined plane...in order for the box to "appear" to slide down the plane, the plane would have to move horizontally.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.  Maybe a flatearther can chime in.  Gravity is so ingrained into our everyday experiences, it's hard to visualize how things would behave without it.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2020, 10:15:27 AM »
I spoke to a colleague of mine last night who used to be a physics teacher and had this discussion with him.  As a hypothetical thought experiment, he agrees that under the equivalence principle, and assuming equivalent atmospheric pressure, there would be absolutely no difference to how a rollercoaster would behave on the surface of a massive body like Earth, and how it would behave inside a constantly accelerating reference frame as per UA.

Under UA, we all accelerate upwards and are effectively “pushed” into the surface of the Earth, but the surface stops us falling through.  Using your hill analogy, the hill is part of the Earth.  You’re not, you can move independently, just like the rollercoaster car can move freely with respect to the track. The reason you don’t fall down a steep hill is because of high friction between the soles of your shoes and the surface of the Earth.  If you were to suddenly remove the hill from the equation, you’d be in mid air.  You wouldn’t just keep on accelerating upwards, you’d slow down because the Earth is no longer pushing you.  The Earth would accelerate up towards you and you’d appear to fall.  If you took the same scenario but instead of removing the hill, you swapped it with smooth ice, this is more analogous to the rollercoaster scenario.  Yes you are still being slightly accelerated upwards because now you’re on the surface still, but this time the acceleration forces are enough to overcome the friction forces and so you slide down the hill.

Stuff moving sideways is all explained by the same forces and vectors which have a direction and magnitude.  On a horizontal surface the box wouldn’t move.  On a slight incline, the box may or many not move depending on how much friction there is, but let’s say it does move, albeit slowly.  The steeper the incline, the faster the box slides.  At vertical, the box is in free fall.  UA would account for this because it’s directly analogous to gravity on Earth pulling us down.

Honestly, I know it’s hard to wrap your head around, but if the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, neglecting all the other complications/contradictions that the Wiki tries to explain, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between that, and the attractive force of gravity on Earth as we know it.  Things would rise and fall and behave exactly as they do now.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2020, 06:16:37 PM »
Quote
Honestly, I know it’s hard to wrap your head around, but if the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, neglecting all the other complications/contradictions that the Wiki tries to explain, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between that, and the attractive force of gravity on Earth as we know it.  Things would rise and fall and behave exactly as they do now.

Things if free fall would rise and fall exactly the same.  The EP is restricted to objects that have no net force on them, you can't assume that it applies to objects that have net force.

Quote
Stuff moving sideways is all explained by the same forces and vectors which have a direction and magnitude.  On a horizontal surface the box wouldn’t move.  On a slight incline, the box may or many not move depending on how much friction there is, but let’s say it does move, albeit slowly.  The steeper the incline, the faster the box slides.  At vertical, the box is in free fall.  UA would account for this because it’s directly analogous to gravity on Earth pulling us down

Perfect example...you can't calculate vectors the same way with UA as you do with gravity. Any object on a slope has a net force on it.  On a flat surface the normal force and weight from gravity cancel each other out so there is no movement.  That works with UA as well.

But on an incline, the normal force will always be some fraction of the weight/gravity/UA, so the forces are unbalanced.  When force are unbalanced, there is movement in the direction of the stronger force.  With gravity that would be downslope.  With the UA, the object would "fall" upslope because UA is the stronger force.




*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2020, 01:09:30 PM »
I've done a bit more digging and reading as the thought experiment is genuinely fascinating, if hard to wrap your head around because as you say, we live with the effect of gravity as part of our daily lives so to think differently literally means thinking outside the dome.  Ultimately it only applies to a small region of space and time, but it does state that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent, even if not strictly correct as per the video I linked to below.

I think I got my head around most of it, but I must admit, I can't quite grasp the concept of something sliding "up" a slope under UA.  Let's imagine I'm on a flat Earth cliff edge in space, with two boxes at my feet, one "on the ground" and one "over the edge", with no upwards acceleration at all.  I'm sure we both agree that in this scenario, this is equivalent to free-fall on Earth.  We are all weightless and both boxes just stay put.  Now somebody flicks the UA switch and we all start accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2.  Both myself and the box on the top of the cliff now have inertial mass because we are in direct contact with the object that is accelerating us, and we experience that force as weight.  Being at the top, the box just stays where it is.  However, the other box over the edge is still weightless.  The Earth accelerates up towards that box, but to my frame of reference it has fallen to the ground.  To an external observer outside of the Earth, the falling box didn't really move at all, it was the Earth moving up to meet it.

This represents the two extremes - either the box doesn't move relative to me at all, or the box falls to the bottom of the cliff.  It never goes up relative to me, and surely can't go up in the absence of any other force or acceleration acting on it?  Now replace the cliff with an incline, where let's say the force of UA is greater than the friction forces between the box and the surface caused by inertial mass.  The steeper the incline, the faster it will reach the bottom.  Perhaps I'm completely missing something really simple, but another analogy here on Earth could be a wooden ruler held at an incline with a pencil rubber on it.  At some angle it will still stay put due to friction.  However, if I were to suddenly be accelerated upwards holding the ruler (creating my own "local UA" if you like) that rubber would appear to slide down the ruler from my perspective.  To somebody else stood on the ground, it will appear as though the rubber essentially stayed still, and in fact saw the ruler sliding up the rubber.  Just depends on your frame of reference.  That's how I see things anyway, but the realities could be very different.

I found this page and video interesting though, and it pretty much sums up FET in a nutshell - takes existing science and facts, extracts the bits that fit, warps the rest and skews the consequences accordingly.  It does kinda' make sense why on the bigger scale the Equivalence Principle doesn't work in the flat Earth model interpretation of it:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-is-equivalence-principle.html
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2020, 07:22:28 PM »
Quote
Let's imagine I'm on a flat Earth cliff edge in space, with two boxes at my feet, one "on the ground" and one "over the edge", with no upwards acceleration at all.  I'm sure we both agree that in this scenario, this is equivalent to free-fall on Earth.

No, only the box “over the edge” is in freefall.  The box on the ground is not.  In GR, freefall means there is no net force on an object.  More technically, it means an object moves unimpeded along a geodesic.  If an object is supported, then there is a normal force on it, and it can’t move unimpeded on a geodesic.
 

Quote
We have to consider in our experiment is that a rolling object down an inclined plane is not in free-fall. The inclined plane exerts some force on the object. The larger the inclination of the plane, the smaller the force exerted by the plane, and the closer the object will be to free-fall


https://www.racefitlab.com/Experiment hgAAAA8AAAAgwxxeAAAAAA==#:~:text=We%20have%20to%20consider%20in,will%20be%20to%20free%2Dfall.

Quote
Perhaps I'm completely missing something really simple, but another analogy here on Earth could be a wooden ruler held at an incline with a pencil rubber on it.  At some angle it will still stay put due to friction.  However, if I were to suddenly be accelerated upwards holding the ruler (creating my own "local UA" if you like) that rubber would appear to slide down the ruler from my perspective.
 

The problem is that in order for it to appear that the rubber “slides down”, the ruler would have to move horizontally to some degree, and UA can’t account for horizontal movement, only vertical.

The way I visualize it is an object suspended from the ceiling by a string, just touching a wedge.  If you raise the wedge straight up (creating your own UA, as you say), the object won’t slide down (the string would counteract gravity).  It would just stay where it is and rise up with the wedge.  In order for it to appear to “slide down”, while actually remaining stationary, the wedge would have to move up and either to the left or right (depending on the direction of the angle on the wedge).

I think that is the major fault with the concept of UA=gravity.  The effect that gravity has on an object will shift and change as the position of the object changes.  I don’t think UA can do that.  It has to always be exactly vertical and effect the whole object with exactly the same magnitude.

Anyway, I don’t pretend to have it all figured out, but I do know that the knee jerk reaction of “...but the equivalence principle...” on this site whenever someone raises a question about the effect of gravity is not justified.  It only applies to free falling objects and we see too many effects of gravity that have nothing to do with freefall...from saggy body parts to how plants grow. 

Quote
I found this page and video interesting though, and it pretty much sums up FET in a nutshell - takes existing science and facts, extracts the bits that fit, warps the rest and skews the consequences accordingly.  It does kinda' make sense why on the bigger scale the Equivalence Principle doesn't work in the flat Earth model interpretation of it:

Exactly, they take the bits and pieces of a concept that fits their narrative and ignore the rest.  Einstein’s concept of the EP and GR went through several iterations before the final theory was developed.  One of the last (maybe even the last) definition of the EP he made is

Quote
Principle of Equivalence. Inertia and gravity are phenomena identical in nature. From this and from the special theory of relativity it follows necessarily that the symmetric “fundamental tensor” determines the metric properties of space, the inertial behavior of bodies in this space, as well as the gravitational effects.

Einstein didn’t say that from the equivalence of gravity and inertia, it necessarily follows that the earth is accelerating upwards.  But that's exactly what flatearthers want to pretend that is what he said.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2020, 11:29:07 AM »
I think I get where you are coming from, and nor do I profess to have it all worked out either.  I'm not thick, but I do have limits and gaps!  What's obvious though, reading what you've said and from elsewhere, is that you cannot just take the Equivalence Principle as refined and twist it around to fit the UA narrative - just doesn't work.

It would explain why water is "level" on a flat Earth per the subject, but doesn't explain tides because they shot themselves in the foot by rejecting gravity so need an alternative theory for that.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2020, 12:49:49 AM »
Level and horizontal are synonyms, I am glad we agree on this.

Level and horizontal are both always flat, by definition and, more importantly, in manifest objective reality.

Yes, I am aware of the incorrect definition of level being taught in "schools".  There is no curve-a-level.  Level is always both flat and horizontal.

If you disagree, and believe that your definition is correct - then please provide a demonstration in reality of level and flat ever differing.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 11:25:50 PM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2020, 03:38:56 AM »
Level and horizontal are synonyms, I am glad we agree on this.

Level and horizontal are both always level, by definition and, more importantly, in manifest objective reality.

Yes, I am aware of the incorrect definition of level being taught in "schools".  There is no curve-a-level.  Level is always both flat and horizontal.

If you disagree, and believe that your definition is correct - then please provide a demonstration in reality of level and flat ever differing.
You could do your best, on a calm day, to align a rod to the level of the sea, then align another rod at exactly a 90 degree angle with the first.  That second rod would result in a vector pointing upwards.  If you did that experiment once in Los Angeles, USA and again in Shanghai, China the vectors would point in completely different directions.  If the earth were flat, both of the upward pointing rods would be parallel.  If the earth were spherical, they would be at a much different angle.  This is what's effectively happening when you observe a gyroscope.  This is an unbiased observation, it's just the information produced by an instrument that couldn't care less what the earth's shape happens to be.  Now we are not talking about a single gyro but dozens, all producing the same results.  If you travel in any direction upon the high seas in a ship the gyros will indicate that the center line between the bow of the ship will relentlessly tilt further & further with the bow going down and the stern going up. 

It's a bit more difficult to make an exact determination of what is level while underway on a ship because the ship's tilt is always changing.  However it is certainly possible to observe a change in angle of 90 or 120 degrees with no ambiguity. It's also possible to see the level when a ship is at the dock.  Strangely enough ships always have large & accurate levels aboard.  Why? Because when they are at the dock and cargo & fuel are being loaded, it's important to keep the ship level to reduce stresses on the hull and not break any dock lines.  This is done by pumping ballast water from tank to tank.

Perhaps there's another explanation for these actual observations under real world conditions that I don't know about.  It would appear to me that the gyro is indicating that the ship is navigating on a very large sphere.  The size is large enough for the human eye to be unable to detect any curvature or a change in the Z axis, but the much more sensitive gyroscope is able to measure a change over days & weeks which would be expected because of the speed of the vessel and the size of the earth. 
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 05:49:05 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2020, 12:11:15 PM »
Level and horizontal are synonyms, I am glad we agree on this.

Level and horizontal are both always level, by definition and, more importantly, in manifest objective reality.

Yes, I am aware of the incorrect definition of level being taught in "schools".  There is no curve-a-level.  Level is always both flat and horizontal.

If you disagree, and believe that your definition is correct - then please provide a demonstration in reality of level and flat ever differing.

What's your definition of flat?  Flat in this context to me means "free of raised areas or indentations", in which case even the flat Earth cannot be considered flat because it has hills and valleys.  But, if we remove that level of pedanticity (that's a word now!) and let's just say that a flat Earth is indeed flat.  Well, then so is the side of of my house.  That's flat, but it is almost certainly not level, and doesn't really need a demonstration - just go outside yourself and have a look at your own.  The surface of the monitor I'm looking at now is very flat, much flatter than the side of my house, but is far from level.  That's two examples of level and flat differing.

The fact of the matter is that level and flat are two different things, regardless of the shape of the Earth.  I completely understand what you are attempting to drive towards, but being flat relates to the surface itself, and being level relates to the surface being at the same height, perpendicular to the centre of gravity.  But, since you don't believe in gravity either I suspect the debate could be rather moot.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12837
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2020, 12:35:30 PM »
pedanticity (that's a word now!)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pedantry

What's your definition of flat?
In this context, it's pretty obvious what a flat surface of water is, and, assuming FET, it will indeed be synonymous to a level body of water. You'll struggle to find a vertical, or otherwise askew, surface of water.

rejecting gravity
Whoah there, cowboy. Nobody's "rejecting" gravity. And, since you almost certainly meant gravitation, nobody's "rejecting" that, either.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 12:38:51 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2020, 01:19:02 PM »
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pedantry

Don't be so pedantic  ;)

In this context, it's pretty obvious what a flat surface of water is, and, assuming FET, it will indeed be synonymous to a level body of water. You'll struggle to find a vertical, or otherwise askew, surface of water.

Synonymous in that context maybe, but still doesn't mean they have the same definition.  Even in RET, for a normal person stood on the surface, the same can be argued - it looks flat and level.  However, on the larger scale, the surface of the water follows the curvature of the Earth, and it does so because of gravity.  Thus completing the never-ending cycle of debate, because under FET, water cannot "curve", despite there being plenty of references I can make to water surfaces being askew in nature.

Whoah there, cowboy. Nobody's "rejecting" gravity. And, since you almost certainly meant gravitation, nobody's "rejecting" that, either.

Errr, nope, I certainly meant gravity, and jack44556677 has plenty of references to gravity around words such as "fiction", "not real", "concocted", "there is none", "if it were real", "Newton would have scrapped it" etc.  Excuse me for interpreting that as anything other than rejecting the concept of gravity.  This is backed up with a similar rejection of the concept of mass, leading to the conclusion that weight is an intrinsic property of matter - something you'd know if you took the time to understand why I might have written what I did instead of putting words into my mouth again.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 01:34:13 PM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2020, 03:52:36 PM »
Quote
If you disagree, and believe that your definition is correct - then please provide a demonstration in reality of level and flat ever differing.

It happens all the time.  I live in an 110 year old  house.  Put a carpenter’s level on the floors, they will be flat, in that, both ends of the level will rest on the floor, but I guarantee you that many places aren’t level.

Flat is a description of the surface of an object. A planar surface is flat.  Level is about the orientation of an object relative to some reference.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12837
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2020, 04:45:06 PM »
Synonymous in that context maybe, but still doesn't mean they have the same definition.
Technically correct, but entirely irrelevant, given that you yourself already acknowledged the importance of context. I'm not sure why you'd waste our time like that.

Errr, nope, I certainly meant gravity
To be completely clear: if you "certainly meant gravity", then you've found someone who claims things don't fall on Earth (regardless of the cause).

https://byjus.com/physics/difference-between-gravitation-and-gravity/
https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics/difference-between/gravitation-and-gravity/

I doubt you have indeed found someone who claimed that, and based on the context of this conversation (and your subsequent statements), it's nigh-impossible that you meant anything other than gravitation.

Christ, one day you'll learn not to just lash out at every disagreement you encounter, but it'll be a long process.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 04:47:21 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2020, 04:49:40 PM »
If I’m remembering correctly, Newton imagined gravity when an apple fell from a tree.  But if that apple would have caught on fire would the same gravity pull the smoke down like it did the apple.  What would be easier to pull.  If you have 2-100’ ropes. With a Bicycle on the end of the first rope and a train on the second rope.  The bike would be because it’s 1000’s of times smaller than the train and would require less force. 
So why would the force of gravity pull down a bowling ball faster than it would a feather.  It should take less force to move the feather. 
Gravity doesn’t effect the tides.  If it did, when it moves the oceans and seas +/- 10’ it would also move that small pond in my back yard.  But It doesn’t move it, not 1”.  Just like every other body of water that’s not connected to the oceans.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2020, 06:04:39 PM »
Technically correct
I'm glad we agree

but entirely irrelevant, given that you yourself already acknowledged the importance of context. I'm not sure why you'd waste our time like that.
Ah...

If you think it's irrelevant and a waste of time, just skip it then.  Regardless of the shape of the Earth, flat means flat, level means level, they don't mean the same thing and never will.  Under FET, they are used as synonyms with respect to water at every vantage point, under RET they are only synonyms in certain circumstances because water curves.  This is supposed to be the Flat Earth Theory forum, and this discussion relates directly to FET and the very title of the thread, including a direct request for a demonstration of the difference between flat and level.

...Christ, one day you'll learn not to just lash out at every disagreement you encounter, but it'll be a long process.
Not sure where you went with that as I absolutely 100% meant gravity, as clearly written multiple times in black and white.  If you want to yet again infer that absence of gravity means somebody thinks things don't fall, perhaps you should understand the impact that intrinsic weight would have in such an understanding.

As for lashing out, you're fond of that term aren't you?  Yet, you're the one going around dissecting posts, picking them apart piece-by-piece and taking every chance you can to throw petty insults and derogatory terms around.  I'm just reacting in a manner befitting of how you engage with me, so if you want to partake in productive discussions, try to be not quite so destructive.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2020, 06:16:12 PM »
If I’m remembering correctly, Newton imagined gravity when an apple fell from a tree.  But if that apple would have caught on fire would the same gravity pull the smoke down like it did the apple.  What would be easier to pull.  If you have 2-100’ ropes. With a Bicycle on the end of the first rope and a train on the second rope.  The bike would be because it’s 1000’s of times smaller than the train and would require less force. 
So why would the force of gravity pull down a bowling ball faster than it would a feather.  It should take less force to move the feather. 
Gravity doesn’t effect the tides.  If it did, when it moves the oceans and seas +/- 10’ it would also move that small pond in my back yard.  But It doesn’t move it, not 1”.  Just like every other body of water that’s not connected to the oceans.
You are correct in that remembrance, but if the apple caught fire, the smoke particles would rise up with the hot air causing convection currents above it.  The smoke particles are very, very light and may eventually end up back on the ground, but some can stay in the atmosphere for a very long time as the wind and natural air currents continue to blow them about.

The bike would indeed be easier to pull because the train has significantly more mass.  The larger the mass, the heavier the weight due to gravity, and so it would be impossible for me to move the train, but possible for me to move the bike.  Even if we forget gravity and mass for a second and just assume weight is a "thing", the same effect would be observed.

The reason why gravity pulls a bowling ball down faster is because the feather experiences proportionally much more air resistance.  If you get a large enough container and create a strong vacuum and carry out the experiment, you'll find that they fall at exactly the same rate.  This is because the bowling ball has a lot more mass than the feather, so is harder to get moving.  The lighter feather is easier to get moving, and so the net effect is that both fall together at the same time.

The question about tides is all to do with scale.  The Earth is absolutely huge, almost 8,000 miles in diameter, and so a bulge of 10 feet is  nothing in relative terms. The water in your pond does rise up, but it is by such a tiny amount it is basically imperceptible and would easily be negated by wind effects at that scale.  It's the same effect of the horizon looking flat out at sea - it looks flat simply because the Earth is huge and you are tiny in comparison.

Another thing to consider is that if it’s not the gravity of the Moon and Sun causing tides, what is it?  We know tides exist and they generally happen twice a day.  I don’t have the answers to tides in the absence of known gravity, the Wiki might help.  I should take another look!

Hope those helped your thinking a bit :) 
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 06:41:19 PM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12837
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2020, 06:36:49 PM »
If you think it's irrelevant and a waste of time, just skip it then.
You forget my role here. If you're wasting people's time with irrelevant remarks, it's my job to stop you. So: Stop it. This is the last time I will ask this politely. Since you have not responded positively to previous requests to date, short bans will follow if you don't start taking this place seriously. I hope I've made myself clear.

Not sure where you went with that as I absolutely 100% meant gravity
You evidently did not. You didn't see anyone claim that things don't fall down to Earth. If you think you did, you need to work on your reading comprehension, and urgently.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 06:38:26 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2020, 06:48:12 PM »
If I’m remembering correctly, Newton imagined gravity when an apple fell from a tree.  But if that apple would have caught on fire would the same gravity pull the smoke down like it did the apple.  What would be easier to pull.  If you have 2-100’ ropes. With a Bicycle on the end of the first rope and a train on the second rope.  The bike would be because it’s 1000’s of times smaller than the train and would require less force. 
So why would the force of gravity pull down a bowling ball faster than it would a feather.  It should take less force to move the feather. 
Gravity doesn’t effect the tides.  If it did, when it moves the oceans and seas +/- 10’ it would also move that small pond in my back yard.  But It doesn’t move it, not 1”.  Just like every other body of water that’s not connected to the oceans.
You are correct in that remembrance, but if the apple caught fire, the smoke particles would rise up with the hot air causing convection currents above it.  The smoke particles are very, very light and may eventually end up back on the ground, but some can stay in the atmosphere for a very long time as the wind and natural air currents continue to blow them about.

The bike would indeed be easier to pull because the train has significantly more mass.  The larger the mass, the heavier the weight due to gravity, and so it would be impossible for me to move the train, but possible for me to move the bike.  Even if we forget gravity and mass for a second and just assume weight is a "thing", the same effect would be observed.

The reason why gravity pulls a bowling ball down faster is because the feather experiences proportionally much more air resistance.  If you get a large enough container and create a strong vacuum and carry out the experiment, you'll find that they fall at exactly the same rate.  This is because the bowling ball has a lot more mass than the feather, so is harder to get moving.  The lighter feather is easier to get moving, and so the net effect is that both fall together at the same time.

The question about tides is all to do with scale.  The Earth is absolutely huge, almost 8,000 miles in diameter, and so a bulge of 10 feet is  nothing in relative terms. The water in your pond does rise up, but it is by such a tiny amount it is basically imperceptible and would easily be negated by wind effects at that scale.  It's the same effect of the horizon looking flat out at sea - it looks flat simply because the Earth is huge and you are tiny in comparison.

Another thing to consider is that if it’s not the gravity of the Moon and Sun causing tides, what is it?  We know tides exist and they generally happen twice a day.  I don’t have the answers to tides in the absence of known gravity, the Wiki might help.  I should take another look!

Hope those helped your thinking a bit :) 


So when force of gravity moves these massive body’s of water that increases elevation 10’ what replaces underneath the water.  You can’t just move water without air,dirt,etc. replacing the area that has moved.