21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 23, 2019, 06:31:21 PM »

I'm getting a bit lost in all the abbreviations so just to make it clear: does "GR" stand for the RET gravity? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you that in the RET, gravity has only one source - mass.

General Relativity. And no, you can't act like all celestial bodies (or, indeed, all bodies with a mass) are one and the same source. You're looking at multiple forces, pulling in different directions. Sure, the principle behind these forces is the same, but that is neither here nor there.

Thank you for the clarification. Multiple sources but one universal principle - that's exactly what I meant (and I'm sorry if I put it unclearly before).
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Ok, I see. So, could you, please, remind me of how the CG (or the UA) explains the Eötvös effect? Thank you.

I can't, because I don't know the answer, and I do not wish to speculate on something I haven't personally investigated.

Thank you for your response.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 22, 2019, 04:29:47 AM »

Which is yet another problem for UA. You have to have multiple sources to explain the gravity of other celestial bodies

You say that as if GR only had a single source.

I'm getting a bit lost in all the abbreviations so just to make it clear: does "GR" stand for the RET gravity? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you that in the RET, gravity has only one source - mass.

Does it have something to do with the CG?

It has everything to do with CG. The measurable gravity that affects you is a combination of multiple factors. This is true in either model, but for some reason people always assume that UA should somehow be a one-force-explains-all kinda deal.

(...)

Your assumption is that since you can measure different values of g for different locations on Earth (and above it), then UA itself is different for each of these locations. This is simply not the case. The variations are primarily in CG, resulting from varying distance from other celestial bodies, the density of the matter directly beneath you, etc.

Ok, I see. So, could you, please, remind me of how the CG (or the UA) explains the Eötvös effect? Thank you.

In comparison, your claim sounds to me just about as silly as someone claiming that since gravity is generally weaker on the equator than on the poles, the Round Earth is about to rapidly bulge itself out of its roughly spherical shape. It's a misunderstanding of concepts, but instead of trying to understand the concepts, you just shout far-reaching implications and demand that someone sets you straight. Most people won't have the patience to do that.

Well, the RE does bulge a little (according to the RET) but the bulge stays the same. However, if the UA was the only force in play the difference would increase. For you to get an idea: in not even 15 minutes of accelerating from zero velocity, the elevation difference between Mount Huascaran and the Arctic Ocean, the areas with the most extreme gravitational accelerations, would be greater than between the bottom of the Mariana Trench and Mt Everest (on the RE) and in 29 hours it would be 384 000 km, the same as the mean distance between the Earth and the Moon (in the heliocentric model).

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 21, 2019, 07:11:39 PM »

Firstly, you don't have to talk down to them and their argument like that. It immediately makes the other person feel like you are just going to ignore and insult them, which no one wants. (..)

Sorry, looking back I see that the way I put it was far from polite. In my defence, my irritation is based on true stories. Anyways, I'd like to apologize to anyone I may have offended and I promise I'm going to try to do better 

There are even more problems with the UA. The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.

Regarding the power source  - nobody would be able to actually "see" it, so the FEers can make any wild claims as they please. You know, dark matter, dark energy, ... (they usually choose something scientifically sounding so that their theories appear more plausible).

(...) But, I do agree with your argument wholeheartedly. And I want to dive deeper into that topic, shall we?

If the measurable gravity (or upward acceleration) is not 9.8m/s^2 everywhere on earth, meaning that different parts of the earth are accelerating upwards at different velocities, how does the ground not collapse on itself or shatter?

Links:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6074/do-we-take-gravity-9-8-m-s%C2%B2-for-all-heights-when-solving-problems-why-or-why
www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/

I have another question: has it been clarified how the UA theory/hypothesis explains the Eötvös effect?

And regarding

The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.

This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case.

I'm a bit lost. Can you, please, explain what you mean by the UA not being the only source of gravity? How many are there? What are they like? What data points to their existence? (Those are genuine questions, by the way. I haven't heard of this before so I'm truly interested. Does it have something to do with the CG?)

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 21, 2019, 03:08:55 PM »

There are even more problems with the UA. The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.

Regarding the power source  - nobody would be able to actually "see" it, so the FEers can make any wild claims as they please. You know, dark matter, dark energy, ... (they usually choose something scientifically sounding so that their theories appear more plausible).

25

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 21, 2019, 05:04:52 AM »

The Moon is almost completely dark on my W (271°).

EDIT: The shadow is moving from my left to my right.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: January 20, 2019, 08:27:47 PM »

Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.

The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:


Of course, said method can be easily faked. However, it is just as easily replicable, so you can try it for yourself and see the result 

I disagree that this video is evidence that of the earth's Coriolis Effect.

Could you, please, explain why? Or provide an alternative explanation?

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: I created an artwork inspired by the Flat Earth theory.

« on: January 20, 2019, 08:08:14 PM »

How long did it take to make? It's absolutely fantastic!

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: January 20, 2019, 08:03:15 PM »

Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.

The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:


Of course, said method can be easily faked. However, it is just as easily replicable, so you can try it for yourself and see the result 

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star coordinate systems

« on: January 20, 2019, 07:08:53 PM »

I don’t see an explanation for this coming from any of the current flat earth models.

Well, Mr Bishop did (kinda) answer here.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: January 20, 2019, 07:02:26 PM »

See the Coriolis Effect articles in the Wiki.

In summary - the FES denies it even exists.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a secular reason for the round earth deception?

« on: January 20, 2019, 06:56:45 PM »

(...) When the global earth model was first developed and accepted, centuries ago, there was no NASA to take people's money (?)
(...)

Actually, more like two thousand and some hundreds of years ago, which makes it even stranger.

On another note, I wonder when we'll see quantum mechanics deniers. Those theories are truly mind-boggling!

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Suns lit area of the flat Earth

« on: January 20, 2019, 06:40:26 PM »

If I remember correctly, some FEers propose the electromagnetic accelerator theory (see this thread).

By the way, I assume you are working with the unipolar model of the FE but that version has been "proved" impossible (thread). Mr Bishop than said that the FE is bipolar (voilà). I asked a similar question here but with no response.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the lives of flat earthers

« on: May 04, 2018, 10:09:00 AM »

(...)

When did you start believing the earth was flat?

When presented with the evidence.

May I ask you which arguments in particular have convinced you?

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Foucault Pendulum

« on: May 03, 2018, 09:39:21 AM »

(...)
No experiment you do will discredit the celestial gravitation idea, because it is defined to be perfectly aligned with reality.

The CG cannot explain the Eötvös effect. So, either the CG theory is wrong or it doesn't explain every gravimetric abnormality (in which case the FES needs to devise a new theory).

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun

« on: May 03, 2018, 05:51:52 AM »

Some of FEers propose the electromagnetic accelerator theory.

EDIT: see this thread.

36

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 07:50:01 AM »

I already asked you "Were you expecting to synchronize rotation and revolution?"

The earth is in the same position on the orbit from where it started and  24 Hour Solar Time needs to have the sun at 12 Noon. There does need to be synchronization.

 

After 365 rotations towards Sun (calendar year), Earth simply didn't yet reached exact point where Sun apparently crosses Equator (Tropical year).
When Sun crosses Equator Earth will simply have some other meridian facing Sun.

EDIT:
Do you describe difference between Calendar year and Tropical year in some other way?

Refer to the analogy from a little earlier. The laser is hitting the ballerina in the face after the circuit around the house when the ballerina has rotated 365.24 times.

Replace ballerina with the 24 hour Solar Clock and you will see the issue.

Do you have any empirical evidence for that?

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 05:41:54 AM »

Bobby. The earth is like the ballerina in the analogy above. The laser is hitting it in the face again when you know that it needs to rotate 356.24 times.

Except that the Earth is not a ballerina. The laser wouldn't hit the same place on the Earth again, solar noon is at a different place after 365,24 rotations. Or do you have data that would prove me wrong?

38

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 04:44:21 AM »

The world record in 400m sprint is 43,03 s. Why isn't it an integer?

39

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 04:38:32 AM »

(...)

IT IS ALWAYS SOLAR NOON SOMEWHERE. This has nothing to do with sidereal anything.

It is always Solar Noon somewhere. You are correct. I corrected that post on how I worded that.

Start the 24 hour clock on the September Equinox point where it is 12PM Solar Noon at the point of the Equinox and it will end on ~6PM after one Solar Year. Why would it not stop at 12PM if you are in the same position on the earth's orbit around the sun, as per the diagrams?

Because Earth's orbit around the Sun takes 365.24 days.

There's no need for the equinox to be always at 12 am at some (single) place.

How then, does that reconcile with the 24 Hour Solar Day?

Solar Noon is always somewhere on earth. It will be somewhere on the point of the Equinox.  The Solar Day is based on the sun rotation around the earth - 24 hours per rotation.

How do you explain the incompatibility between Solar Day and the Number of Solar Days in a Solar Year? Where does the extra time come from?

Why would I need to explain it? It simply is. There's no need for days to fit exactly into one year. It's just a number we've measured of units we've decided to use.

40

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 04:16:02 AM »

IT IS ALWAYS SOLAR NOON SOMEWHERE. This has nothing to do with sidereal anything.

It is always Solar Noon somewhere. You are correct. I corrected that post on how I worded that.

Start the 24 hour clock on the September Equinox point where it is 12PM Solar Noon at the point of the Equinox and it will end on ~6PM after one Solar Year. Why would it not stop at 12PM if you are in the same position on the earth's orbit around the sun, as per the diagrams?

Because Earth's orbit around the Sun takes 365.24 days.

There's no need for the equinox to be always at 12 am at some (single) place.