Dual1ty

The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 04, 2023, 02:27:07 PM »
FE is slowly but surely leaving the old theories behind. Don't take it personally.  ::)


Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2023, 06:51:05 PM »
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2023, 07:38:06 PM »
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.

That's interesting that it went over your head. May I ask what your beliefs are regarding Earth and gravity?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2023, 08:18:02 PM »
UA is my favorite proof of Flat Earth. There are different kinds of experiments which suggest that the surface of the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. It is considered to be an absurd phenomenon which inspired the modification of the nature of space and time at the beginning of the 20th century to account for the effects under a Round Earth. The geometry of space of such a nature that the earth is physically accelerating up to objects at a physical level, but there is an unseen nature of the universe called "space-time" or "curved space" which creates this illusion.

See the information in these links:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.

Firstly, it doesn't need to be a disk accelerating through a Cartesian universe. The traditional expanding universe model postulates that the universe can expand and accelerate away from itself and create new space without mass destruction. It could also be something akin to a universe accelerating through a larger meta-universe and we feel the inertial effects.

Per speed of light limits, it's not a limit in Special Relativity and things can continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light as a function of the laws through dilation effects. But Special Relativity was created to explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment which suggests that the Earth is horizontally motionless. So while continuous acceleration isn't a problem in SR, I have some doubts about those laws myself.

Much of the major theoretical science in Astronomy is really about why the FE seems to be true but is "really" not. It is continuously fascinating. The "but but how about this" just doesn't compare to the bulk of this evidence.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2023, 08:32:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2023, 08:33:02 PM »
UA is my favorite proof of Flat Earth. There are different kinds of experiments which suggest that the surface of the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. It is considered to be an absurd phenomenon which inspired the modification of the nature of space and time at the beginning of the 20th century to account for the effects under a Round Earth. The geometry of space of such a nature that the earth is physically accelerating up to objects at a physical level, but there is an unseen nature of the universe called "space-time" or "curved space" which creates this illusion.

See the information in these links:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.

Firstly, it doesn't need to be a disk accelerating through a Cartesian universe. The traditional expanding universe model postulates that the universe can expand and accelerate away from itself and create new space without mass destruction. It could also be something akin to a universe accelerating through a larger meta-universe and we feel the inertial effects.

Per speed of light limits, it's not a limit in Special Relativity and things can continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light as a function of the laws through dilation effects. But Special Relativity was created to explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment which suggests that the Earth is horizontally motionless. So while continuous acceleration isn't a problem in SR, I have some doubts about those laws myself.

All of the major theoretical science in Astronomy is really about why the FE seems to be true but is "really" not. It is continuously fascinating. The "but but how about this" just doesn't compare to the bulk of this evidence.

I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.

The globe-earthers have an explanation, which is the "warping of spacetime". But really, if you look into it, "spacetime" is a bastardization of the Ether. That was the whole agenda behind pushing relativity and particle physics into the mainstream - to make the Ether a myth just like Atlantis.

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2023, 08:33:48 PM »
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.

That's interesting that it went over your head. May I ask what your beliefs are regarding Earth and gravity?

No, wait, I missed the brief advert for the book; presumably the video is meant to be that length. I still don't understand the point of this in an FE Theory forum: if you mean us to read Mr Wheeler's book and then discuss it with you, why not say so? Always assuming it's relevant to FE Theory, that is.
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2023, 08:51:10 PM »
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.

What you are asking is unreasonable. Demanding to know about the workings and origins to the energies of the universe is basically asking a spiritual question.

The laboratory experiments speak for themselves for what is happening and anything else is speculation.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2023, 08:55:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2023, 08:57:25 PM »
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.

What you are asking is unreasonable. Demanding to know about the workings and origins to the energies of the universe is basically asking a spiritual question.

The laboratory experiments speak for themselves for what is happening and anything else is speculation.

You can keep believing in Rocketship Earth if that's what you want. My video is not made for close-minded people, it's meant for people who are interested in the experiments that prove the Ether and how the Ether functions.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2023, 09:46:29 PM »
See the information in these links:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.
My main objection to UA is that the Equivalence Principle, that you like to tout as evidence, explicitly says that it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2023, 10:04:46 PM »
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.

What you are asking is unreasonable. Demanding to know about the workings and origins to the energies of the universe is basically asking a spiritual question.

But one of your objections to gravity is that "despite great effort, the mechanism for gravity has not been discovered". But you think it unreasonable to ask what powers UA?

On your Wiki page on the evidence for EA you say that gravitational mass and inertial mass being equivalent has been called "one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries that exists in fundamental physics". What is your source for that quote? I couldn't see a reference on the Wiki page and when I Googled the phrase the only reference I could find was the Wiki page.

Personally I'm not sure why this is an issue anyway. I mean, F = ma tells us that a greater "m" requires a greater "F" to make it accelerate at the same rate as a smaller "m". But the formula for gravity tells us that the "F" due to gravity is proportional to the "m", so those two things cancel out and all objects accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field. You could ask "why" that is, but isn't that similar to the question you objected to above? It just seems to be the way the universe works. I think General Relativity makes some sense of this but that's a bit above my scientific pay grade.
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"

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2023, 10:07:23 PM »
You can keep believing in Rocketship Earth if that's what you want. My video is not made for close-minded people, it's meant for people who are interested in the experiments that prove the Ether and how the Ether functions.
So out of interest why do you think things fall?
I'm not a FE believer, but UA does at least do a pretty decent job of explaining that. It's imperfect, it doesn't explain the weight variation by latitude. But it's the best FE explanation I've seen. I've seen silly explanations about how objects are more dense than the air below them but that makes no sense - objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up? UA at least provides an explanation for that.
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"

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2023, 11:07:31 PM »
So out of interest why do you think things fall?

Gravity.

I'm not a FE believer, but UA does at least do a pretty decent job of explaining that. It's imperfect, it doesn't explain the weight variation by latitude. But it's the best FE explanation I've seen. I've seen silly explanations about how objects are more dense than the air below them but that makes no sense - objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up? UA at least provides an explanation for that.

No, the best explanation is the one I'm offering: Etheric Acceleration. And I'm not a FE believer either, I'm a FE realist and researcher.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2023, 09:38:31 AM »
So out of interest why do you think things fall?
Gravity.
Hmm. OK, but the mainstream view of gravity is that the force of gravity acts in the direction of the centre of mass.
That's why things fall "down" from any point on a sphere, because we define down with respect to how we are facing.
How would that work on a FE where the centre of mass would surely be somewhere below the centre.

Quote
No, the best explanation is the one I'm offering: Etheric Acceleration.
I don't even know what that means. The video in the OP offered no clear explanation
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"

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2023, 11:25:14 AM »
So out of interest why do you think things fall?
Gravity.
Hmm. OK, but the mainstream view of gravity is that the force of gravity acts in the direction of the centre of mass.
That's why things fall "down" from any point on a sphere, because we define down with respect to how we are facing.
How would that work on a FE where the centre of mass would surely be somewhere below the centre.

Quote
No, the best explanation is the one I'm offering: Etheric Acceleration.
I don't even know what that means. The video in the OP offered no clear explanation

No, the mainstream view of gravity is that it isn't a force and that everything is freefalling along a curved path. So you can apply this curved path to the center of FE as well. g variance shows this to be true.

The video points to a book that you can download for free and you can figure things out yourself by reading it. All the pictures in the video are from that book.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2023, 04:59:12 PM »
See the information in these links:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.
My main objection to UA is that the Equivalence Principle, that you like to tout as evidence, explicitly says that it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.

It's more like "there is not a difference between an environment with an upwardly accelerating floor and an illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."

The "gravity" you are referring to is the curved space illusion gravity, not the traditional Newtonian gravity where bodies fall downwards. The version of gravity where bodies fall downwards was long disproven.

But one of your objections to gravity is that "despite great effort, the mechanism for gravity has not been discovered". But you think it unreasonable to ask what powers UA?

That is a statement of fact. Some people do think that all things about gravity have been discovered. They are incorrect.

Maybe it is also unreasonable to expect to know the mechanism and energy source of gravity. This is just another point against the notion that the UA energy source should be known.

On your Wiki page on the evidence for EA you say that gravitational mass and inertial mass being equivalent has been called "one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries that exists in fundamental physics". What is your source for that quote? I couldn't see a reference on the Wiki page and when I Googled the phrase the only reference I could find was the Wiki page.

Did you try clicking on the [1] link after that quote?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration



Personally I'm not sure why this is an issue anyway. I mean, F = ma tells us that a greater "m" requires a greater "F" to make it accelerate at the same rate as a smaller "m". But the formula for gravity tells us that the "F" due to gravity is proportional to the "m", so those two things cancel out and all objects accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field. You could ask "why" that is, but isn't that similar to the question you objected to above? It just seems to be the way the universe works. I think General Relativity makes some sense of this but that's a bit above my scientific pay grade.

I guess it could be possible that the universe is filled with phenomena where Flat Earth Theory appears to be correct, but numerous illusions really make the earth round. At some point you will have to look in the mirror, however.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2023, 02:02:27 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2023, 02:31:36 AM »
...an illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."
That depends on your frame of reference.  If your FoR is the same as the earth, then a dropped object appears to be accelerating downwards towards the floor.  So again, there is no way to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2023, 09:24:35 PM »
...an illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."
That depends on your frame of reference.  If your FoR is the same as the earth, then a dropped object appears to be accelerating downwards towards the floor.  So again, there is no way to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.

There are ways to tell. Light blueshifts or redshifts whether the light is moving towards or away from you.



In the Pound-Rebka and Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments a light source is placed at the top and the bottom of the tower and researchers measured whether it was redshifted or blueshifted at the other end. If it acts like the environment of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship where the ceiling is accelerating away from the incoming light that is shining upwards it will behave one way and not another.

https://time-theory.info/pound-rebka-experiment/



In the right hand version we can see when the light shines upwards from the light source to the ceiling it redshifts.

This quote in this book even clarifies it:

https://books.google.com/books?id=W4DN9dDlxBgC&lpg=PA29&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

“ One can also see the role of the equivalence principle by considering a pulse of light emitted over a distance h along the axis of a spaceship in uniform acceleration g in outer space. The time taken for the light to reach the detector is t = h (we use units G = c = 1). The difference in velocity of the detector acquired during the light travel time is v = gt = gh, the Doppler shift z in the detected light. This experiment, carried out in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship whose rockets produce an acceleration g, must yield the same result for the energy shift of the photon in a uniform gravitational field f according to the equivalence principle. The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments can therefore be regarded as an experimental proof of the equivalence principle.

See bolded.

Curved space gravity is mimicking the effect of being inside of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship. That is what is meant by the equivalence principle.

According to the equivalence principle whatever physical effect takes place in an upwardly accelerating environment is indistinguishable from "gravity". This is what it is.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2023, 09:50:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2023, 11:08:48 PM »
“ One can also see the role of the equivalence principle by considering a pulse of light emitted over a distance h along the axis of a spaceship in uniform acceleration g in outer space. The time taken for the light to reach the detector is t = h (we use units G = c = 1). The difference in velocity of the detector acquired during the light travel time is v = gt = gh, the Doppler shift z in the detected light. This experiment, carried out in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship whose rockets produce an acceleration g, must yield the same result for the energy shift of the photon in a uniform gravitational field f according to the equivalence principle. The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments can therefore be regarded as an experimental proof of the equivalence principle.

See bolded.

Curved space gravity is mimicking the effect of being inside of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship. That is what is meant by the equivalence principle.

According to the equivalence principle whatever physical effect takes place in an upwardly accelerating environment is indistinguishable from "gravity". This is what it is.
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level.  So, how is it that you can tell the difference?  What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2023, 11:13:32 PM »
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level.  So, how is it that you can tell the difference?  What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?

Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity. See the above example of the Pund-Rebka experiment. In the version in an upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling would be accelerating upwards and therefore creating more space between it and the photon. In Newtonian gravity the ceiling is not accelerating upwards.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2023, 11:28:16 PM »
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level.  So, how is it that you can tell the difference?  What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?

Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity.
This isn't going to be another pedantic gravity vs gravitation gotcha, is it?  You know full well that the terms gravity and gravitation are used interchangeably, even by physicists discussing GR.  Even the article that you cited uses the term gravity even though it's obviously referring to gravitation.

So, just to make you happy, how does one tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation when the EP specifically says that you can't?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2023, 11:35:01 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.