#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2023, 05:03:55 PM »
Is there a FE explanation?
Also not novel. You're approaching this with the mindset that FE must be revolutionary in every aspect. It's just orbital mechanics, even if we're not aware of every barycentre involved.

Things like that are pretty good evidence for the model being correct.
No, that's not how you do science. It's pretty good evidence that RE orbital mechanics match many observations - something FE doesn't contest. RE is, generally speaking, a serviceable approximation of the world. It happens to break down in certain areas, but for everyday use its okay; much like Newtonian physics is neither "correct" nor "incorrect" - it simply matches most simple observations.

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### JPJ

• 12
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2023, 01:37:32 AM »

Quote
Okay. If that's your frame of reference then the Earth would not be accelerating at 1g after an infinitesimal length of time. So that's the correction you'll have to make to your first assumption.

It isn’t “my” frame.  It is how relative velocity is measured.  You have to use a 3rd common  reference frame that is stationary relative to at least one of the moving objects. You can’t determine the relative velocity between two objects by using the relative velocity of the same two objects.

You can use a fixed point on the earth, but you can’ t use the earth itself.

The rate of acceleration doesn’t matter, only the velocity that is produced relative to an inertial observer.

Quote
It's an absolutely terrible approximation. Under your assumptions (which are incorrect anyway, but we may as well finish going through this), that figure would be just around 0.46c.

If you want more precise numbers, after one year the velocity would be .77c.  Note that velocity is computed with acceleration relative to an inertial observer.

Quote
First of all, we need to be clear what we mean by continuous acceleration at 1g.
The acceleration of the rocket must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference travelling at the same instantaneous speed as the rocket

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html

And that number is also close to the FET formula in the wiki, which is .71c So use whichever value you want for a year or either formula, but either way within a short time the velocity will reach .9c.

Quote
After all, the meteor is affected by UA just like everything else is, so its velocity relative to your observer will only be marginally different from that of the Earth.

Why would it be different all?   That’s the crux of the OP’s question.

Quote
There is also nothing novel about them colliding with Earth. OP proposes that something has to "cause a meteor to suddenly lose acceleration and 'fall'", but that's blatantly not the case. Both bodies are affected by UA, so their relative velocity will be unaffected by it. The meteoroid will continue to travel with its initial velocity, and will continue to be affected by other factors, like gravitation.

If UA effects the meteor, their relative acceleration would be zero and they would never meet.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 394
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2023, 11:24:19 AM »

Quote

If UA effects the meteor, their relative acceleration would be zero and they would never meet.

In no way am I advocating FE, but that premise seems incorrect.

In the RE case, everything on Earth is affected by the same gravitational acceleration, but things still meet; bats meet balls, cars meet pedestrians, and bullets meet victims.

You are presuming;
1.  No other forces are involved.
2.  Initial velocities are identical.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2023, 08:15:34 PM »
It isn’t “my” frame.
It absolutely is. You're presenting a hypothetical scenario you've invented. Everything about it is "yours".

The rate of acceleration doesn’t matter
Of course it does. You wouldn't be too happy if it turned out to be , for example.

If you want more precise numbers, after one year the velocity would be .77c.
Incorrect - sounds like whatever "do my homework plz" snuck in a factor of 2 somewhere in there. I already told you what the result should be. Please study relativity until you can perform this calculation correctly.

Why would it be different all?   That’s the crux of the OP’s question.
I already answered that. Have you considered reading? However, I'm glad that you've suddenly snapped from "0.99c relative to Earth" to "not moving at all". It makes you much less wrong. You are now off by only 50km/s or so, rather than 0.99c or so - a 549000% improvement in accuracy!

If UA effects the meteor, their relative acceleration would be zero and they would never meet.

You are presuming;
1.  No other forces are involved.
2.  Initial velocities are identical.
Yes, this is obvious to everyone but OP and pearly boy. Let me pre-warn you: this guy's threads usually go like this. He'll exclaim something absolutely idiotic like "spirit levels work because if you don't hold it level, there's a difference in gravitational force affecting two ends of the level, which in turn causes the air bubble to move", and then he'll just keep doubling down on it, no matter how much you highlight the issues. He's permabanned here, and this alt will be joining the pack after we've had our fun.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2023, 08:21:43 PM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### JPJ

• 12
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2023, 12:47:08 AM »
Quote
It absolutely is. You're presenting a hypothetical scenario you've invented. Everything about it is "yours"

Can you explain how you go about determining the relative velocity between 2 objects?

Quote
Incorrect - sounds like whatever "do my homework plz" snuck in a factor of 2 somewhere in there. I already told you what the result should be. Please study relativity until you can perform this calculation correctly.

John Baez, mathematical physicist at UC Riverside “did the homework”.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/

(click on physics FAQ in the upper right corner)

Quote
In no way am I advocating FE, but that premise seems incorrect.

In the RE case, everything on Earth is affected by the same gravitational acceleration, but things still meet; bats meet balls, cars meet pedestrians, and bullets meet victims.

You are presuming;
1.  No other forces are involved.
2.  Initial velocities are identical.

The relative velocity between the earth and a falling object isn’t 0.  Relative to an inertial observer, the velocity of the object would be some value, V.  Relative to an inertial observer, the velocity of the earth would be 0 (it is stationary relative to an observer).  So the relative velocity between the object and the earth would be V+0.

I’m assuming that all celestial bodies in the universe have 0 initial velocity. IOW, all are stationary relative to one another and begin accelerating at the same rate at the same time, in the same direction. That means at any given time all celestial bodies...are still stationary relative to one another.   If that was not the case, we would see distances between the “slower” and “faster” bodies change over time.

If a meteor is initially 10,000 miles above the surface of the earth and each begins accelerating in the same direction at 1g at the same same time, the meteor will always stay 10,000 miles above the surface of the earth.  Unless, as you suggest there is some other force in play.  But according to Pete, there isn’t.

Quote
OP proposes that something has to "cause a meteor to suddenly lose acceleration and 'fall'", but that's blatantly not the case.

Quote
Yes, this is obvious to everyone but OP and pearly boy. Let me pre-warn you: this guy's threads usually go like this. He'll exclaim something absolutely idiotic like "spirit levels work because if you don't hold it level, there's a difference in gravitational force affecting two ends of the level, which in turn causes the air bubble to move",

What exactly is idiotic about it?  An equipotential surface has constant gravitational potential, and is level.  Therefore a spirit level can show whether or not the surface has constant gravitational potential.

Quote
The geoid is a hypothetical Earth surface that represents the mean sea level in the absence of winds, currents, and most tides. The geoid is a useful reference surface. It defines the horizontal everywhere and gravity acts perpendicular to it. A carpenter’s level aligns itself along the geoid and a carpenter’s plumb bob points down the vertical or perpendicular to the geoid

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GRACE/page3.php

Quote
level surface—A surface which at every point is perpendicular to the plumb line or the direction in which gravity acts. A level surface is an equipotential surface. *the surface of a body of still water is a level surface. See leveling, water surface of the ocean – if changes caused by tides, currents, winds. atmospheric pressure, etc., are not considered – is a level surface. The surface of the geoid is a level surface

https://learncst.com/level-definitions/.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2023, 01:01:33 AM »
Can you explain how you go about determining the relative velocity between 2 objects?
Sorry - you will not deflect away from the deficiencies of your proposal. I'll help you complete it, but you're gonna have to do your homework.

John Baez, mathematical physicist at UC Riverside “did the homework”.
That's great. We know know whose work you stole this time, in the absence of being able to perform simple calculations yourself. And we now know where the factor of 2 snuck in; or, well, I now know. We can work with 0.77c if you prefer - it's still just about 0.7698c off. I actually kind of agree with you - when you're this ludicrously off, it almost doesn't matter what value you choose for the relative velocity.

Relative to an inertial observer, the velocity of the earth would be 0 (it is stationary relative to an observer).
This is an assumption, which you're making with no justification, and which everyone is telling you is wrong. You gotta fix it or justify it.

What exactly is idiotic about it?
Well, it's just not how spirit levels work, as multiple FE'ers and RE'ers explained to you. It's also idiotic because your new argument conflates a definition of the word "level" with the mechanism responsible for the operation of a tool that happens to contain this word in its name.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2023, 10:49:32 AM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### AATW

• 6439
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2023, 10:35:08 AM »
Is there a FE explanation?
Also not novel. You're approaching this with the mindset that FE must be revolutionary in every aspect. It's just orbital mechanics, even if we're not aware of every barycentre involved.
I'm approaching it with the mindset that for a new model to be adopted it has to provide better explanations for observations than the existing one. It needs to make better predictions.

Quote
No, that's not how you do science. It's pretty good evidence that RE orbital mechanics match many observations - something FE doesn't contest. RE is, generally speaking, a serviceable approximation of the world. It happens to break down in certain areas, but for everyday use its okay; much like Newtonian physics is neither "correct" nor "incorrect" - it simply matches most simple observations.
There's two things here, there's RET in the sense of the earth being a globe. The earth is a physical object which has a shape. That shape has been observed. Not by me, admittedly, but in real life no-one believes only the things they have directly observed. There's a page on your Wiki about the ice wall. How many of you have observed it directly?

Then there's RET in the sense of the whole of conventional physics. We agree that it isn't complete, it doesn't perfectly explain everything we observe. It does a pretty good job of some things, others things not so much. There are things we simply don't understand right now. But that has always been the case, that's why science is still a thing. If it perfectly explained everything it would stop. Newtonian physics does a very good job for many things, but for others Relativity does better which is why it has superseded it - it's a better understanding of reality. For something else to come and replace it, it would have to do a better job still of explaining observations and making predictions.

Your mindset seems to be that because RET in the second sense isn't complete, it must be all wrong. You're throwing the globe earth baby out with the whole of physics and astronomy bathwater. Which would be ok if your model was better, but right now it isn't. If it's a work in progress then fine - RET in the second sense above is too - but FET won't be widely adopted until it can do a better job of explaining reality than RET.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2023, 02:52:43 PM »
Your mindset seems to be that because RET in the second sense isn't complete, it must be all wrong.
Well, if it helps at all, that's exactly what your mindset comes across as every time you complain about FET being incomplete, or about it not revolutionarily differing from RET in some aspects.

but FET won't be widely adopted until it can do a better job of explaining reality than RET.
It's doing astonishingly well so far. I know that you like to impulsively hand-wave the statistics away, cherry-picking random online polls over proper surveys with sound methodologies, but your arguments on how poorly FE is doing will fall on deaf ears, because they ignore facts.

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### AATW

• 6439
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2023, 10:28:15 PM »
Your mindset seems to be that because RET in the second sense isn't complete, it must be all wrong.
Well, if it helps at all, that's exactly what your mindset comes across as every time you complain about FET being incomplete, or about it not revolutionarily differing from RET in some aspects.
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental. FET is a collection of hypotheses which at times contradict one another. Now I know you've explained that the Wiki is meant to document competing FE ideas, so I guess that's fair enough. But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat. And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.

Quote
It's doing astonishingly well so far.
By what metric? Are you looking for quality or simply quantity? By the latter metric yes, it is doing well. A depressing number of people do now believe the earth is flat. In the same way that a depressing number of people are anti-vaxxers. Conspiracy theories are far easier to spread now the internet is a thing. And the level of scientific literacy amongst the great unwashed is low. So yeah, this is one of the conspiracy theories which has proliferated, we'll probably have to agree to disagree about whether that's a good thing. But you're not getting any traction in the serious scientific community any more than anti-vaxxers are in the serious medical community. Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't. And, again, let's not conflate RET in the wider sense with the earth's physical shape. The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### JPJ

• 12
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2023, 05:56:16 AM »
Quote
It absolutely is. You're presenting a hypothetical scenario you've invented. Everything about it is "yours".

Relative velocity between two objects can only be calculated using a third frame as a benchmark.  Once more for the people in the back...you can’t find the relative velocity between objects by using their relative velocity.  That’s common sense.

Quote
Incorrect - sounds like whatever "do my homework plz" snuck in a factor of 2 somewhere in there. I already told you what the result should be. Please study relativity until you can perform this calculation correctly.

LOL, you might want to let the internationally known Ph.D , whose written text books and published nearly 100 peer reviewed papers on math and physics that his math is wrong.  I’m sure he’d appreciate it.

The formula isn’t some super secret.  You can find it in just about any textbook that discusses hyperbolic motion and Rindler coordinates, the coordinate system used for uniform acceleration in flat spacetime, even wikipedia.

Quote
No you didn’t. You just said it was because the meteor’s velocity would only be marginally different without explaining why.  “You’re wrong, but I’m not going to tell you why” usually indicates one either doesn’t have an explanation or isn’t interested in honest discussion.  If I am wrong, how could explaining why “help my case”?

Quote
Well, it's just not how spirit levels work, as multiple FE'ers and RE'ers explained to you. It's also idiotic because your new argument conflates a definition of the word "level" with the mechanism responsible for the operation of a tool that happens to contain this word in its name.

Carpenter's level Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carpenter's level
Webcarpenter's level noun 1 : plumb level 2 : a straight bar (as of aluminum or wood) with a small spirit level embedded in it

Geoid=an equipotential surface.  A spirit level (aka carpenter's level  aligns itself to it.

An equipotential surface is level, a spirit level establishes if a surface is level, therefore, a spirit level can establish if a surface is equipotential (has constant gravitational potential).

Which of those statements is wrong?

I guess its a good thing none of those people actually manufacture them, maybe someone should let them know they don’t understand how their own product works
Quote
Principles
For all spirit levels, the sensitivity specification is determined by the sensitivity of the vials that are used. This is determined by the radius of curvature within the vials, which the bubble moves across. All spirit level vials and bubble vials contain this curved radius, even though it cannot always be seen. This allows the bubble to move to the highest point of the radius as gravity acts on the liquid inside the vial once it is level. The sensitivity is directly related to the radius of curvature of the vial:
https://www.leveldevelopments.com/2020/10/sensitivity-accuracy-of-spirit-level-vials

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2023, 10:36:01 AM »
Relative velocity between two objects can only be calculated using a third frame as a benchmark.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

you can’t find the relative velocity between objects by using their relative velocity.
Well, you can, it's just pretty redundant. It's also exactly what you've done (and contradicted yourself in the process), hence the mockery.

See - that's the problem here. You don't know what you're doing, in a very literal sense. You're just throwing up equations and calculations, but you don't know what any of them mean. This is why you keep falling on your face.

LOL, you might want to let the internationally known Ph.D , whose written text books and published nearly 100 peer reviewed papers on math and physics that his math is wrong.
I didn't say he was wrong. I said I now know where the factor of 2 snuck in. Do you?

No you didn’t.
Sure I did.

You just said it was because the meteor’s velocity would only be marginally different without explaining why.
I, and at least one other person, explained why your premise is false (it assumes that UA is the only factor, and it assumes that one body's initial velocity is huge while the other's is 0, without providing any justification for this).

If I am wrong, how could explaining why “help my case”?
It would either help you learn or prove that you're not wrong. I mean, it'd be the former, but hey-ho.

Carpenter's level Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carpenter's level
Webcarpenter's level noun 1 : plumb level 2 : a straight bar (as of aluminum or wood) with a small spirit level embedded in it

Geoid=an equipotential surface.  A spirit level (aka carpenter's level  aligns itself to it.

An equipotential surface is level, a spirit level establishes if a surface is level, therefore, a spirit level can establish if a surface is equipotential (has constant gravitational potential).

Which of those statements is wrong?
All of these statements are correct. However, your failure is conflating correlation with causation. In RET, a spirit level will, to some degree of accuracy, confirm that a line (or surface, but that's not the default case) has consistent gravitational potential along it. However, this does not mean that a spirit level works due to differences in gravitational potential. This has been explained to you time and time again. Perhaps you'll want to read the responses you previously received.

I guess its a good thing none of those people actually manufacture them, maybe someone should let them know they don’t understand how their own product works
You're missing an important point of failure - yourself. Your poor reading of how the tool works is hilariously wrong. So wrong, in fact, that not a single person agreed with you in conversation. RE'ers, FE'ers, physicists, nobody. You need to look inward.

Quote
This is determined by the radius of curvature within the vials, which the bubble moves across.
Well, at least this time you acknowledge the vials are curved. Last time you viewed this as a ridiculous possibility which couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

See, this is the problem with you blindly quoting things you don't understand. You contradict yourself. Like, all the time.

Also, you're getting pretty boring now. If your next post isn't going to start resolving the many errors in your claim, it's back to the shit tank with you.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2023, 11:37:48 AM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2023, 10:45:53 AM »
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental.
Look at you. You can't hold your breath for 2 sentences. "Uhhh the problem isn't that it's incomplete, just look at this thing that's necessary for its completion!!!!!".

Also, your claim that the FE map isn't "working" is entirely misguided; and your claim that it's "fundamental" is pulled out of thin air. You don't get to dictate what's fundamental for progress, and the way the world works won't change based on what you consider "fundamental". Fundamentalism is passé.

Now I know you've explained that the Wiki is meant to document competing FE ideas, so I guess that's fair enough.
You bring this up all the time, and then you follow up by explaining that you're happy with the reasoning. If you're OK with it, why constantly mention how OK you are with it? Excuse the speculation, but it doesn't sound like you've come to terms with it at all.

But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat.
No. That's just your imagination of the motives behind our observations. I can't help you with that until you start helping yourself. You need to stop imagining things and start listening to people when they tell you why they do something. If you think they're not telling you the truth, you need to back that up with reasoning - not just say "uhmmm nuh you do this because XYZ".

Now, a lot of it is explained in terms of answers to RE complaints, because you lot are this meme:

Zeteticism is pretty democratic like that. It speaks the language that people want to hear, while teaching them how to soundly evaluate their surroundings. If you want better answers, ask better questions.

And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.
Incorrect, especially given that the models don't even differ in this case. You're literally saying that orbital mechanics simultaneously can and can't predict the same phenomenon.

By what metric? Are you looking for quality or simply quantity?
You were the one who raised quantity as a subject. Now you're complaining that I responded to you without changing the subject. Stop playing this shitty game. If you want to discuss quality, don't raise quantity and then go "ok but quality tho".

But you're not getting any traction in the serious scientific community
The "serious scientific community" is the cause of the "depressing" state of the world you're decrying so much. People just aren't interested in pandering to the old guard simply because they're the old guard. If they want to step up their game, bring it on. Until then, they're going to become increasingly irrelevant. In terms of quantity. Because of quality.

Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't.
Incorrect. FE works better than RE. RE contains unresolveable contradictions, while FE is simply less complete than RE. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by this.

The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.
Incorrect. They were determined with RE assumptions, and they happen to work. To the same (terrible) standard of correctness, they "demonstrably work and rely on FET".
« Last Edit: January 10, 2023, 11:02:21 AM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### AATW

• 6439
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2023, 05:17:35 PM »
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental.
Look at you. You can't hold your breath for 2 sentences. "Uhhh the problem isn't that it's incomplete, just look at this thing that's necessary for its completion!!!!!".
The issue is that "incomplete" isn't a strong enough word. RET is incomplete, there are things it can't explain. But there's plenty it can and does a good job of modelling. FET doesn't even exist. There is no working model which has any predictive power at all.

Quote
Also, your claim that the FE map isn't "working" is entirely misguided; and your claim that it's "fundamental" is pulled out of thin air.
We know how far places are apart, we know the shapes and sizes of land masses. If the earth is flat it should be possible to plot them on a map and it match the reality. The earth is flat, maps are flat. Just scale down. The entire reason that every map of the whole earth is a projection is that maps are flat and the earth isn't, so some distortion has to be introduced. So yes, I regard it as pretty fundamental that there's no working map. If you couldn't make a globe of the earth which accurately depicts land mass shapes and sizes and the distances between them then that would put quite a big dent in the claim that the earth is a globe.
The other option is to deny the known distances I guess, that's the approach Tom seems to take. But that's a bit of a stretch given that there's a whole travel industry predicated on knowing where places are and GPS demonstrably works.

Quote
But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat.
No. That's just your imagination of the motives behind our observations.
I do at times suspect that you lot are treating this as an academic exercise. You know the earth is a globe, but let's imagine the earth is flat - why does the sun appear to set? Why do objects fall? EA and UA are thus invented to explain those things - things which RET already has explanations for.
But the motive isn't really that important. The point is you guys are simultaneously claiming that observations show the earth is flat and hypothesising mechanisms which explain why observations aren't what you'd expect to see on a flat earth.

Quote
you lot are this meme
Nah. That's a straw man. You don't have to explain everything, as discussed RET can't do that.
But you need to explain some things. If your model doesn't explain things better than RET then it's not going to be taken seriously by the scientifically literate.
EA is actually a pretty good explanation for sunset - it's a million times better than "perspective" or some of the other rubbish you see on some FE YouTube channels. But your reasoning about it is circular. The sun sets in your model because the light bends upwards. How do we know light bends upwards? Well, the sun sets, doesn't it?
Now, that might be unfair, but I've yet to see any solid experimental evidence that this phenomena even exists.

Quote
And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.
Incorrect, especially given that the models don't even differ in this case. You're literally saying that orbital mechanics simultaneously can and can't predict the same phenomenon.
How do the models not differ? The RE model has the earth orbiting the sun because of gravity. The meteors are in a certain part of that orbit so as the earth goes through it we get a meteor shower. In FE the celestial bodies are rotating above us once a day. What's the equivalent annual cycle which would explain the annual meteor showers. I'm not saying none can exist but it can't be identical to RE.

Quote
You were the one who raised quantity as a subject. Now you're complaining that I responded to you without changing the subject.
I'm not complaining. You said the FET had been a success, I simply asked by what metric. If your aim is to convince a lot of people then yes, I guess FET has been a success. But that's not what I meant by the model being "widely adopted" - that is not about quantity in terms of your average Joe. A lot of scientifically illiterate people believing in FET and not using it for any practical purpose, instead of believing in RET and not using that for any practical purpose, isn't a model being widely adopted. The model hasn't been adopted by any professionals working in the relevant fields. There are no FE equations one can use to model things and launch satellites.

Quote
The "serious scientific community" is the cause of the "depressing" state of the world you're decrying so much. People just aren't interested in pandering to the old guard simply because they're the old guard.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree. People don't need to "pander" to anyone, but people should listen to subject matter experts because...well, they're experts.
If I'm ill I go see a doctor, if my boiler stops working I call a boiler engineer.
Now, experts aren't always right of course, but this growing attitude that the average man in the street knows better than people who have studied in a particular field for years or even decades is ridiculous. That's the state of the world I am depressed by and I don't see how the scientific community have caused that. I'd suggest the cause is the internet, it allows bad ideas to proliferate far more quickly than they ever could before. The free availability of information about any topic is a good thing, but a lot of people have a misplaced confidence in their ability to understand what they're looking at. Googling things is not "doing your own research".
Now, I'm not saying that unswerving, unthinking confidence in experts is a good thing either, but there's surely a sensible middle ground.
Your position, from previous conversations, seems to be that everyone should figure out a model of reality for themselves. That's like saying everyone should build their own house. Sorry, but I don't have the skills. I wouldn't know where to start. There is a right way of building a house so it doesn't fall down, so why not get some people who know what they're doing to do that.

Quote
Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't.
Incorrect. FE works better than RE.
Counterpoint - no it doesn't. You have no model which has any predictive power so in what way does it "work better"? Give an example.

Quote
RE contains unresolveable contradictions, while FE is simply less complete than RE.
What makes you say they're unresolvable?

Quote
The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.
Incorrect. They were determined with RE assumptions, and they happen to work.
OK. So GPS works by having a cluster of satellites orbiting the globe. By knowing the positions of some of those satellites and using timestamps you can figure out where you are. Are you suggesting that NASA thought they were putting satellites into orbit around a globe but they're actually just circling over a FE, and all the calculations used to find your position just happen to work out?
And, again, the globe earth has been observed. There are numerous satellites and other craft which have taken photos, there are timelapses of those showing the rotating earth. And the ISS is in orbit as we speak, an object which can be observed from the ground and which ham radio operators have contacted. Again, do NASA just think it's orbiting the globe but it's really just circling above us and all the RE calculations used to get it there just happened to work out despite the earth really being flat? The other option is that the ISS is fake of course, that's a path a lot of FE people go down. But...well, you can see it from the ground so that's a bit of a stretch. Clearly something is up there.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2023, 10:31:48 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### JPJ

• 12
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2023, 06:41:41 PM »
Quote
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

How relative velocity is determined is the issue and you keep avoiding it.

Quote
Well, you can, it's just pretty redundant

It isn’t just redundant.  Its meaningless.  Its like using a word to define itself.  It’s also pointless, if you already know the relative velocity between two objects, you don’t have to find it.  It’s the very definition of circular logic.

Quote
I, and at least one other person, explained why your premise is false (it assumes that UA is the only factor, and it assumes that one body's initial velocity is huge while the other's is 0, without providing any justification for this).

You said:

Quote
There is also nothing novel about them colliding with Earth. OP proposes that something has to "cause a meteor to suddenly lose acceleration and 'fall'", but that's blatantly not the case. Both bodies are affected by UA, so their relative velocity will be unaffected by it. The meteoroid will continue to travel with its initial velocity, and will continue to be affected by other factors, like gravitation

The wiki says:

Quote
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. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

It doesn’t say anything about celestial gravitation effecting objects of mass that are not on the earth.  So what other factors might effect a meteor’s velocity?

And I did provide justification for the velocities by explaining how relative velocity should be calculated (something you have failed to explain).  And by explaining that in the absence of gravity, objects or observers that are uniformly accelerated  who start from rest at the same time in the same inertial frame will remain stationary to one another (at least in that same inertial frame..in an accelerated frame, the distance between the objects would increase).  There would be no reason for  the earth and a meteor to meet under those circumstances.  Unless, there is some other force at work.  The only option you have offered is Gravitation, but according to the wiki, it doesn’t effect objects not on the earth.  You haven’t offered any other possible alternatives, so why wouldn’t someone assume there is no other force or factor in play?

Quote
I didn't say he was wrong. I said I now know where the factor of 2 snuck in

Quote
Incorrect - sounds like whatever "do my homework plz" snuck in a factor of 2 somewhere in there. I already told you what the result should be. Please study relativity until you can perform this calculation correctly

Yes, you did.  The result you told me it should be was not .77c. It wasn’t even .71c, which is the velocity your own equation in the wiki gives.

You don’t understand hyperbolic motion or  the difference and relationship between proper acceleration, the physical acceleration experienced by an object and that by definition is measured in a co-moving inertial frame  and coordinate acceleration, which is measured in some other inertial frame that is not co-moving.

The coordinate acceleration will decrease over time, but the proper acceleration remains constant.  If you want to maintain earth’s proper acceleration, at a constant 9.8m/s^2, you can’t use the coordinate acceleration to find the velocity..

Coordinate and proper acceleration are related by the transformation:

If you transform a coordinate acceleration less than g, you get a proper acceleration less than g and the earth wouldn’t be experiencing a constant acceleration of g.  Proper acceleration is Lorentz Invariant. If the acceleration is less than g, in one  frame it is less than g in all of them.

The bottom line is this...

1. Is constant acceleration hyperbolic motion?  Yes
2. Do you have to use the hyperbolic motion equations to find the velocity of an object in hyperbolic motion? Yes
3.  Is the equation for velocity of an object in hyperbolic motion

yes.
4.  Is the acceleration in that  equation proper or coordinate?
Proper

Last but not least
5. Do objects in hyperbolic motion eventually experience an event horizon, beyond which no signal can be sent or received?  Yes.
6. Does that mean a flat earth with constant acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 will experience an event horizon, beyond which no signal can be sent or received??
Yes

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

Quote
However, this does not mean that a spirit level works due to differences in gravitational potential. This has been explained to you time and time again. Perhaps you'll want to read the responses you previously received.

what do you think “This allows the bubble to move to the highest point of the radius as gravity acts on the liquid inside the vial once it is level. “ means?

The curved radius “allows” the bubble to move to the highest point.  It doesn’t “cause” it to move to the highest point. That is like saying the sky causes a balloon to float away.  A curve in a glass vial doesn’t exert a force on the bubble and move it up. Gravity works on the fluid, pulling it down, which allows the bubble to move  to the highest point.  When the potential is constant, the highest point is in the middle, where the curve is. If gravity wasn’t working on the fluid as the potential changes, the bubble wouldn’t move.

A spirit level detects differences in the gravitational potential across a surface. That’s their whole purpose.  If there were never any differences in gravitational potential, they wouldn't work. They only work because those differences exist.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2023, 09:35:45 PM »
How relative velocity is determined is the issue and you keep avoiding it.
The issue is the figures you pulled out of thin air - the ones you plugged into your equation. One last chance to justify them!

It doesn’t “cause” it to move to the highest point.
Well, gee, mister, it sure is a good thing that nobody made a claim to that effect. This is a recurring issue - you don't understand the things you read.

If there were never any differences in gravitational potential, [spirit levels] wouldn't work. They only work because those differences exist.
Incorrect.

Here's a fun challenge for you: contact your favourite spirit level manufacturer or award-winning physicist and ask the following question: would a spirit level work in a rocket accelerating through space, in a zero-gravity environment?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2023, 09:47:04 PM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 394
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2023, 10:00:58 AM »

Here's a fun challenge for you: contact your favourite spirit level manufacturer or award-winning physicist and ask the following question: would a spirit level work in a rocket accelerating through space, in a zero-gravity environment?

If I may, here's 2 supplementary questions for JPJ.  I'm not a rocket scientist, but I am an aircraft engineer.  Aircraft actually do have a spirit level in the cockpit; its part of an instrument called the Turn and Slip Indicator.  It doesn't have any electronics, its just a plain and simple spirit level, and the pilot checks it to ensure that the aircraft is balanced about its longitudinal axis.

1.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is banked 60 deg left in a level balanced turn?

2.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is perfectly level in flight with the rudder hard over to the left?

(Hint; if you have access to any kind of computer flight sim you can try this yourself).

#### JPJ

• 12
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2023, 05:49:31 AM »
[quoteHere's a fun challenge for you: contact your favourite spirit level manufacturer or award-winning physicist and ask the following question: would a spirit level work in a rocket accelerating through space, in a zero-gravity environment? [/quote]

The consensus is no.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42904.0

Quote
The issue is the figures you pulled out of thin air - the ones you plugged into your equation. One last chance to justify them!

The equations for hyperbolic motion are well known.I justified the numbers in the explanation that you left unread.  The equation for velocity  in hyperbolic motion uses proper acceleration and coordinate time (ie proper velocity).  You seem to be under the impression that coordinate acceleration should be used to find velocity in hyperbolic motion.  That is wrong.

Quote
First of all, we need to be clear what we mean by continuous acceleration at 1g.  The acceleration of the rocket must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference travelling at the same instantaneous speed as the rocket

That is proper acceleration.

Using that equation, the velocity is .77c  for coordinate time 1.19 years and 1 year proper time. The equation for velocity uses proper acceleration and coordinate time (ie proper velocity)..

It is the exact same result for the formula in the wiki

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15995
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2023, 08:29:05 AM »
The consensus is no.
Impressive. You didn't even manage to get the question right. You also failed the assignment - you were supposed to ask a manufacturer or physicist, not Google some threads. Would you like to try again?

I justified the numbers in the explanation that you left unread.
Nah. We're waiting on your justification for assumption that the meteor is stationary relative to an inertial observer. Would you like to try again?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2023, 08:35:20 AM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### JPJ

• 12
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2023, 05:09:25 AM »
Quote
If I may, here's 2 supplementary questions for JPJ.  I'm not a rocket scientist, but I am an aircraft engineer.  Aircraft actually do have a spirit level in the cockpit; its part of an instrument called the Turn and Slip Indicator.  It doesn't have any electronics, its just a plain and simple spirit level, and the pilot checks it to ensure that the aircraft is balanced about its longitudinal axis.

1.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is banked 60 deg left in a level balanced turn?

2.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is perfectly level in flight with the rudder hard over to the left?

(Hint; if you have access to any kind of computer flight sim you can try this yourself).

I don't know enough about aerodynamics to answer exactly, but in an uncoordinated turn, the bubble wouldn’t be in the center.  In a coordinated turn, where all the forces are balanced, it would.  Because...all gravitational and inertial forces are balanced. There is no lateral acceleration  relative to the planes center of gravity’ like you would feel in a car making a tight curve.

Relative to the plane, the indicator is stationary, so it responds to the same forces the plane, the pilot and passengers experience. Drinks and peanuts don’t go flying off tray tables and people don’t fall sideways out of their seats because within it’s own frame of reference, the plane is level.

A spirit level aligns itself to an equipotential surface.  Maybe the “spirit” means magic and the bubble and fluid just magically change positions.  It doesn’t really matter, because how it aligns isn’t the problem for FET.  Its the fact that a spirit level demonstrates differences in gravitational potential that according to FET shouldn’t exist.

Quote
Nah. We're waiting on your justification for assumption that the meteor is stationary relative to an inertial observer. Would you like to try again?

I have justified the relative velocity I used multiple times.  The RV of the meteor wrt to the stationary observer doesn’t have to be zero.  It could be anything from zero to the limit of -c. Either way, the relative velocity between the earth and the meteor is "ludicrous".   That is based on the meteor and the earth moving towards one another and relative velocity calculated Vac=Vab+Vbc.

If the earth’s velocity relative to b (stationary observer) is .77c and the meteor’s velocity relative to the stationary observer is 0, the relative velocity between the earth and meteor is .77c.  If the RV between the meteor and observer is .-.88c, the RV between the earth and meteor would be.-.98c.  Pick whatever value you want between 0 and -c for the RV of the meteor.

You haven’t explained why the RV shouldn’t be calculated that way or any other way to calculate it, so there is no reason to think it is wrong.

You also haven’t explained why you claim the earth and meteor are accelerating the same direction, but the meteor has a slightly less velocity if they both started at the same time, in the same direction, with the same acceleration.

All you’ve done is make vague references to “gravitation and other forces”, but there is no gravitation in SR.  It’s fundamentally inconsistent with it, that’s why there is GR.  You haven’t identified any other forces, so there is no reason to think your claim is true.

In short, nothing you have presented contradicts anything I’ve said.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 394
##### Re: How do FE meteors work
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2023, 07:43:22 AM »
Quote
If I may, here's 2 supplementary questions for JPJ.  I'm not a rocket scientist, but I am an aircraft engineer.  Aircraft actually do have a spirit level in the cockpit; its part of an instrument called the Turn and Slip Indicator.  It doesn't have any electronics, its just a plain and simple spirit level, and the pilot checks it to ensure that the aircraft is balanced about its longitudinal axis.

1.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is banked 60 deg left in a level balanced turn?

2.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is perfectly level in flight with the rudder hard over to the left?

(Hint; if you have access to any kind of computer flight sim you can try this yourself).

I don't know enough about aerodynamics to answer exactly, but in an uncoordinated turn, the bubble wouldn’t be in the center.  In a coordinated turn, where all the forces are balanced, it would.  Because...all gravitational and inertial forces are balanced. There is no lateral acceleration  relative to the planes center of gravity’ like you would feel in a car making a tight curve.

Relative to the plane, the indicator is stationary, so it responds to the same forces the plane, the pilot and passengers experience. Drinks and peanuts don’t go flying off tray tables and people don’t fall sideways out of their seats because within it’s own frame of reference, the plane is level.

A spirit level aligns itself to an equipotential surface.  Maybe the “spirit” means magic and the bubble and fluid just magically change positions.  It doesn’t really matter, because how it aligns isn’t the problem for FET.  Its the fact that a spirit level demonstrates differences in gravitational potential that according to FET shouldn’t exist.

Thanks.  So you accept that gravity is just one of the acceleration forces that act on an aircraft, and on a spirit level?

(and the "spirit" thing doesn't mean magic; it just means a non-freezing medium, like in "wines, ales and alcoholic spirits".