*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2016, 01:50:54 AM »
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...

You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
The made the whole thing up about gravity. It's kind of like saying magic is pulling things down.
God is real.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2016, 03:53:33 AM »
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...

You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
They made the whole thing up about gravity. It's kind of like saying magic is pulling things down.
Sort of, if by magic you mean the same exact magic that we've found applies to satellites, the moon, the earth, all the planets and their moons, and the sun, as well as the tides. And it sure as hell beats your "celestial gravitation" concept.  If it's not gravity accelerating things downward, then what is?  Why is there clearly higher atmospheric pressure at lower altitudes?  Bonus question: Why are there two high and low tides each day? 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2016, 04:32:11 AM »
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...

You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?
The made the whole thing up about gravity. It's kind of like saying magic is pulling things down.

The whole thing up about the FE's Universal Acceleration. It's kind of like saying magic is pushing the whole Universe up at almost the speed of light!

But why is gravity any more magic than magnetic or electrostatic forces. The only real difference is that gravitation between typical objects is so miniscule that it is hard to (but not impossible) measure.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2016, 04:48:42 AM »
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...

You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?

Who ever said I was "the NASA expert"! (Not I said the fly - as they say in the classics). I am no NASA expert. I do have a smattering of ideas - well one does after more decades than I would care to admit to - but for actual detail I look this up, as you could do just as easily!

There could be a good reason for "You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to taper off exponentially".
That is because gravity DOES NOT taper off exponentially. If the earth is taken as having perfect spherical symmetry, then gravity falls off as the square of distance from the earth's centre of mass. The earth is not quite perfect sphere, but is extreme close. Also the nett gravitation will be affected by any other massive bodies in the vicinity (eg, the moon, but that is not very significant till we get about 10% of the way there)

I did say that the atmospheric pressure falls of approximately exponentially and that's a different kettle of fish altogther.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2016, 04:57:18 AM »
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...

You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?

Who ever said I was "the NASA expert"! (Not I said the fly - as they say in the classics). I am no NASA expert. I do have a smattering of ideas - well one does after more decades than I would care to admit to - but for actual detail I look this up, as you could do just as easily!

There could be a good reason for "You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to taper off exponentially".
That is because gravity DOES NOT taper off exponentially. If the earth is taken as having perfect spherical symmetry, then gravity falls off as the square of distance from the earth's centre of mass. The earth is not quite perfect sphere, but is extreme close. Also the nett gravitation will be affected by any other massive bodies in the vicinity (eg, the moon, but that is not very significant till we get about 10% of the way there)

I did say that the atmospheric pressure falls of approximately exponentially and that's a different kettle of fish altogther.
Pretty sure he was talking about me, considering I'm the one that mentions NASA 3 times between my sig and my profile text  :P
You probably already knew that though.
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2016, 06:18:54 AM »
Still no answer, just a bunch of misdirection and fluff. And flat earthers are the evasive ones. If gravity doesnt just stop, then why is there a distinct edge to our atmosphere? You know, the one that burns up objects the enter through it at 2500 degrees (thank god that doesn't effect manned space shuttles or we'd have some crispy cosmonauts)

Does the moon pull our atmosphere as it goes by? Or only water 100km further away? Is there any photo or video evidence of this?

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2016, 07:18:37 AM »
Still no answer, just a bunch of misdirection and fluff. And flat earthers are the evasive ones. If gravity doesnt just stop, then why is there a distinct edge to our atmosphere? You know, the one that burns up objects the enter through it at 2500 degrees (thank god that doesn't effect manned space shuttles or we'd have some crispy cosmonauts)

Does the moon pull our atmosphere as it goes by? Or only water 100km further away? Is there any photo or video evidence of this?


Actually, the moon does pull on the atmosphere.  Here's a link.  Unfortunately, I don't have any photo or video evidence for you since, y'know, it's the atmosphere. 


That "edge" you refer to doesn't actually exist.  Reentry doesn't have well defined borders, but you can think of it as the period of radio blackout (due to the ionization of air from shock heating. 
Reentry isn't an unsolvable problem.  However, if you try to make a ballistic reentry, you're gonna have a bad time.  That's why capsules and spaceplanes make a lifting reentry.  The capsules are designed to be off balance.  That allows them to control its roll during reentry in order to steer their way down, and it also allows them to spread out the deceleration, making for a safer, more comfortable, better controlled ride down.  The rest of the heat is managed by a heat shield using either ablative coating or advanced insulating tiles.  I, for one, find it fascinating. 


The ISS is still in the atmosphere, and orbital decay is a real issue for it.  It reduces this by angling its solar panels to reduce drag at night, and corrects it by occasionally performing an orbital reboost. 


PS. I don't see what was wrong with my other answers.  To be honest, I really thought I nailed it.  I've laid out the correct reasons that the atmosphere doesn't have a set edge, and I even included a helpful graphic that I found in case you needed it.  What about that is fluff?  If you ask why the earth's atmosphere has a set edge, and then continue to insist that it has one despite repeated explanation to the contrary, can you really say you were looking for an answer? 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2016, 07:48:40 AM »
Still no answer, just a bunch of misdirection and fluff. And flat earthers are the evasive ones. If gravity doesnt just stop, then why is there a distinct edge to our atmosphere? You know, the one that burns up objects the enter through it at 2500 degrees (thank god that doesn't effect manned space shuttles or we'd have some crispy cosmonauts)

Does the moon pull our atmosphere as it goes by? Or only water 100km further away? Is there any photo or video evidence of this?
"Still no answer" to what?
There IS NO DISTINCT EDGE to our atmosphere!




There IS NO REGION THAT BURNS UP OBJECTS "that enter through it at 2500 degrees"! I imagine you are referring to the thermosphere. And to get you really concerned about "crispy cosmonauts" it is the region from about 100 km to 600 km - yes, you guessed it - right where the ISS orbits! I am sure this has been "put to bed" dozens of times, but here goes again:
You might also realise that the air density in this region is almost nothing! So, wht air there is might be very hot, but it is not dense enough to crisp a potato flake, let alone the ISS! take a gander at the picture on the right (from: http://www.geek.com/science/2200f-space-shuttle-heat-tiles-wont-burn-your-bare-hands-1559855/).
The "atmosphere" in the thermosphere is infinitely less dense (and poorer heat conductor) than that tile!


Why 2200°F space shuttle heat tiles won’t burn your bare hands
"Does the moon pull our atmosphere as it goes by?" - by a miniscule amount!
And the moon (or sun) actually lift the water by only a small amount.
Have a look at the following from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/education.html
Quote
Types and Causes of Tidal Cycles - If the earth were a perfect sphere without large continents, all areas on the planet would experience two equally proportioned high and low tides every lunar day. The planet's large continents, however, block the westward passage of the tidal bulges as the earth rotates. Unable to move freely around the globe, these tides establish complex patterns within each ocean basin that often differ greatly from tidal patterns of adjacent ocean basins or other regions of the same ocean basin.
Quote
What Affects Tides? - The relative distances and positions of the sun, moon and earth all affect the size and magnitude of the earth's two tidal bulges. At a smaller scale, the magnitude of tides can be strongly influenced by the shape of the shoreline. When oceanic tidal bulges hit wide continental margins, the height of the tides can be magnified. Conversely, mid-oceanic islands not near continental margins typically experience very small tides of 1 meter or less.
The tides are caused by a relatively small wave moving around the earth "piling up" against continental margins. The very complicated sea-floor of the continental shelves lead to equally comlpex tide patterns in some area.

I really can't understand why you cannot look this stuff up for yourself. You seem to subscribe to the idea that if you can understand something about the globe, then it is evidence that the earth is flat. It is nothing of the sort! It simply that there are lots of things that you don't yet understand. There is nothing wrong with not understanding something. There are lots of things I don't understand. i will do some research - sometimes I can follow the reasoning, sometimes it is beyond me. Neither you nor I are the smartest people around and there will always be things we cannot yet find out, but we can try!

Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2016, 07:11:27 PM »
If there is no edge, then what's the difference between high altitude, low orbit, and high orbit?

SO have we never technically left the atmosphere? Besides supposedly in our space programs infancy in the Apollo missions?

If the ISS is in the atmosphere then why does the photos and videos supposedly taken from out the windows show a distinct edge, you know... The thing everyone talks about in regards to atmosphere?

And if you say that the gas particles in thermosphere are hot, what heats them up? Are the particles in the ISS immune from the suns radiation for whatever reason? I imagine it would be especially rough considering there isn't a lot of other molecules to transfer the heat to.

Give me a break.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2016, 09:31:08 PM »
If there is no edge, then what's the difference between high altitude, low orbit, and high orbit?

SO have we never technically left the atmosphere? Besides supposedly in our space programs infancy in the Apollo missions?

If the ISS is in the atmosphere then why does the photos and videos supposedly taken from out the windows show a distinct edge, you know... The thing everyone talks about in regards to atmosphere?

And if you say that the gas particles in thermosphere are hot, what heats them up? Are the particles in the ISS immune from the suns radiation for whatever reason? I imagine it would be especially rough considering there isn't a lot of other molecules to transfer the heat to.

Give me a break.
As I have stated elsewhere I have given up on answering innane questions from someone who will not open there own eyes and SEE!

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2016, 09:43:32 PM »
If there is no edge, then what's the difference between high altitude, low orbit, and high orbit?

SO have we never technically left the atmosphere? Besides supposedly in our space programs infancy in the Apollo missions?

If the ISS is in the atmosphere then why does the photos and videos supposedly taken from out the windows show a distinct edge, you know... The thing everyone talks about in regards to atmosphere?

And if you say that the gas particles in thermosphere are hot, what heats them up? Are the particles in the ISS immune from the suns radiation for whatever reason? I imagine it would be especially rough considering there isn't a lot of other molecules to transfer the heat to.

Give me a break.
You asked for it.  You don't get a break. 


The gas particles in the thermosphere are hot because they're exposed to the sun's radiation.  It doesn't take a whole lot of energy to heat up a single gas molecule.  However, it does take a lot of energy to heat up a solid space station.  The station is mostly covered in white insulation, which protects against the sun's rays.  It also has radiators to keep it cool.  The heat of the atmosphere isn't a problem because there are so few molecules. 


The photos of the "edge" from the ISS are probably of the ionosphere. 





We have technically left the atmosphere, when we went to the moon!  But since we haven't otherwise been beyond LEO, we've mostly within earth's atmosphere.  You could technically have an orbit at any height as long as it doesn't touch the ground, but the lower it is, the more drag and orbital decay becomes a problem. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2016, 06:34:15 AM »
Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun?

They don't, in FET.  According to FET every celestial body is not traveling around the Earth, but rather the celestial hub (a fixed point above the north pole).  I'm sure you can see that it is not the same in any way as what RE has to say.

Quote
And why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons?  Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides?

Because scientists wanted it that way.  It's all about how the math is interpreted; scientists choose to assume that gravitation works the same on Earth as it does in space, but their reasoning for choosing to do so is flawed.  It's really more faith-based than rational.
 
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2016, 12:04:41 PM »
Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun?
They don't, in FET.  According to FET every celestial body is not traveling around the Earth, but rather the celestial hub (a fixed point above the north pole).  I'm sure you can see that it is not the same in any way as what RE has to say.
Quote
And why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons?  Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides?
Because scientists wanted it that way.  It's all about how the math is interpreted; scientists choose to assume that gravitation works the same on Earth as it does in space, but their reasoning for choosing to do so is flawed.  It's really more faith-based than rational.
 
You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it. Surely the earth, objects on the earth and stellar objects are all the same kind of matter!

In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result he got of about 5,500 kg/m3 surprised everybody,
but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!
Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G".
Now before you dismiss Cavendish* (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of G determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value.  You don't get that close by accident!

His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. 
Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference.
The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.

None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)

This table summarises the modern work:


When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.

No, it is a bit ridiculous to say that gravitation between objects on the earth has been de-bunked! And the term "gravity" in nothing more than the gravitational field due to the mass of the earth. In any case, you simply say it is non-existent, but never give any evidence - your denial of gravity is nothing more than a guess to prop up your hypothesis.


*  Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it.  Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error.  In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless".  Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2016, 05:22:41 PM »

You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it.

No I don't.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2016, 05:48:26 PM »

You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it.

No I don't.



Then can you please explain what your beliefs are?  Because they sure don't seem match up with other FEers. 


Also, I'm gonna have to point out that your answer is sub-minimum content. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2016, 01:17:15 AM »

You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it.

No I don't.

Quote from: the Wiki
Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Well, then what about some answers! I asked the following:
Quote from: rabinoz
In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
We are constantly told "gravity" (which in common usage is nothing more than the "gravitational field due to the earth") is a "fake".
We are constantly told to "look up the Wiki"! We do that and then you say you don't believe that either!

While you are at it please explain the measured variations in gravity on the earth's surface (this has been well known for hundreds or years) and the fact that we get TWO tides a day in most places.

I would say that if Flat Earthers have no answer to what Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measured, then just accept that gravity is real.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2016, 05:38:01 AM »
Gravitation exists on the Earth.  You throw a ball up, it comes back down.  Obviously that is a form of gravitation.  I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2016, 11:47:11 AM »
Gravitation exists on the Earth.  You throw a ball up, it comes back down.  Obviously that is a form of gravitation.  I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.
You (along with I believe every FEer) have not yet answered my question.
Quote
In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

I had hoped not to repeat all this again, but I guess I have to!

So many dismiss gravitation, but just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result of about 5,500 kg/m3 surprised everybody,
but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!
Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G".
Now before you dismiss Cavendish[1] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of "G" determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value.  You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. 

There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then.
His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. 
Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference.
The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.

None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)

This table summarises the modern work:


When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.

[1]  Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it.  Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error.  In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless".  Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2016, 02:25:31 AM »
Gravitation exists on the Earth.  You throw a ball up, it comes back down.  Obviously that is a form of gravitation.  I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.
You (along with I believe every FEer) have not yet answered my question.
Quote
In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

I had hoped not to repeat all this again, but I guess I have to!

So many dismiss gravitation, but just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result of about 5,500 kg/m3 surprised everybody,
but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!
Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G".
Now before you dismiss Cavendish[1] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of "G" determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value.  You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. 

There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then.
His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. 
Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference.
The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.

None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)

This table summarises the modern work:


When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.

[1]  Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it.  Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error.  In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless".  Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!

Well, I apologize, after seeing that the rest of your post was based on a faulty proposition I decided to skip it, as your posts sometimes give me a headache (this time for a change at least the meandering was somewhat on topic), but as it happens, I don't know what's being observed in the Cavendish Experiment.  Obviously something is causing something to react somehow, but I do think that Miles Mathis makes some excellent points that can't be dismissed out-of-hand, however eccentric he might seem (Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist yet he's revered as something of a God to you people, after all) and we must be cognizant of the fact that there's no reason to assume that the theory behind the Cavendish Experiment isn't flawed, or misunderstood.

This is why an open-minded approach to FE research is so important.  Rather than deny something that has been observed many, many times by people of all walks of life, we should be pondering this fascinating experiment, and striving to understand it.  To me, that's what the modern Flat Earth Society is all about, or at least should be.

Whatever the case may be, the Cavendish Experiment does not prove that the Earth is not flat.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2016, 08:59:12 AM »
Well, I apologize, after seeing that the rest of your post was based on a faulty proposition I decided to skip it, as your posts sometimes give me a headache (this time for a change at least the meandering was somewhat on topic), but as it happens, I don't know what's being observed in the Cavendish Experiment.  Obviously something is causing something to react somehow, but I do think that Miles Mathis makes some excellent points that can't be dismissed out-of-hand, however eccentric he might seem (Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist yet he's revered as something of a God to you people, after all) and we must be cognizant of the fact that there's no reason to assume that the theory behind the Cavendish Experiment isn't flawed, or misunderstood.

This is why an open-minded approach to FE research is so important.  Rather than deny something that has been observed many, many times by people of all walks of life, we should be pondering this fascinating experiment, and striving to understand it.  To me, that's what the modern Flat Earth Society is all about, or at least should be.

Whatever the case may be, the Cavendish Experiment does not prove that the Earth is not flat.
Well, the TFES certainly seems to regard Rowbotham as a prophet if not a "god", but no-one regards Newton or any other others as "gods".
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler,  Galileo, Newton, et al did not invent anything or make up anything. They simply discovered what was there. If they didn't someone else would have!

And no, "the Cavendish Experiment does not prove that the Earth is not flat", but it does demonstrate that there is an attractive force between objects with mass. Not only that, but the force is given by:
F = G x m1 x m2 / D2
Hence the Flat Earth must have its own gravity! It would not be the same as on the Globe and would not be simply downward.

It would have a "hubward" (sorry discworld terminology creeps in) component. That is your guru Rowbotham has to try to deny gravity.

I have sympathy for your headaches, but there are so many other areas where your hypothesis simply does not match the real earth.