The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: locke2200 on June 26, 2018, 01:00:37 AM
-
If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.
If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.
I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.
But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:
- The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
- The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
- I am correct in my equations
-
Fantastic logic. Your assumptions are "there's no need to consider reality if I can just divide numbers by one another".
Why not multiply them, instead? You'll be equally correct. Wait, no, let's add them! That will be fun!
Special Relativity is absolutely essential here. If you really want to identify which of your statements is wrong, it's the first one - because you didn't specify the frame of reference, and coincidentally happened to switcheroo between two of them throughout your reasoning.
-
If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.
If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.
I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.
But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:
- The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
- The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
- I am correct in my equations
first off, this only relates to the UA theory.
second, dividing two numbers is not an "equation"
third, yes special relativity is essential here.
you are taking a second grader's approach to this and its not that simple. Read thru some of einstein's theories and he very clearly states objects of mass can never reach C
-
If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.
If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.
I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.
But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:
- The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
- The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
- I am correct in my equations
first off, this only relates to the UA theory.
second, dividing two numbers is not an "equation"
third, yes special relativity is essential here.
you are taking a second grader's approach to this and its not that simple. Read thru some of einstein's theories and he very clearly states objects of mass can never reach C
I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?
-
I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?
why wouldn't it?? who said FE doesnt follow many laws of physics?
-
Given how liberally FE theory attempts to co-opt the theories of Einstein I am imagining that there must be many on this forum familiar with how special relativity meshes with FE theory. Some questions need to be answered to clarify the FE position.
Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of observers and particularly which 'frame of reference' they are in.
Q1. How far away are the stars and galaxies in FE theory? The wiki makes absolutely no reference to galaxies. Do galaxies exist in FE theory or is the universe contained withing our own local galaxy, the milky way?
Q2. Which of the stars and galaxies are in our frame of reference, that is to say, accelerating with us? One assumes that the stars must be otherwise we would long ago have moved out of their sphere of influence.
Q3. Although no mass can ever reach the speed of light can we assume that the FE must now be travelling close to the speed of light and certainly beyond the 80% threshold where relativistic effects become measurable?
Q4. Q3 assumes that there is some outside 'observer' frame of reference. Does FE theory say such a frame exists? I am of course thinking of other galaxies.
Q5. Given that our speed on the FE should have long ago approached the speed of light does that not mean that our observations of any stellar object (galaxy etc) in an 'outside' frame of reference would be grossly affected by relativistic effects? That is to say, we would potentially look at all events outside our FE 'system' frozen in time due to the excessive time dilation effects.
These are just the first questions that occur to me.
-
Given how liberally FE theory attempts to co-opt the theories of Einstein I am imagining that there must be many on this forum familiar with how special relativity meshes with FE theory. Some questions need to be answered to clarify the FE position.
Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of observers and particularly which 'frame of reference' they are in.
Q1. How far away are the stars and galaxies in FE theory? The wiki makes absolutely no reference to galaxies. Do galaxies exist in FE theory or is the universe contained withing our own local galaxy, the milky way?
Q2. Which of the stars and galaxies are in our frame of reference, that is to say, accelerating with us? One assumes that the stars must be otherwise we would long ago have moved out of their sphere of influence.
Q3. Although no mass can ever reach the speed of light can we assume that the FE must now be travelling close to the speed of light and certainly beyond the 80% threshold where relativistic effects become measurable?
Q4. Q3 assumes that there is some outside 'observer' frame of reference. Does FE theory say such a frame exists? I am of course thinking of other galaxies.
Q5. Given that our speed on the FE should have long ago approached the speed of light does that not mean that our observations of any stellar object (galaxy etc) in an 'outside' frame of reference would be grossly affected by relativistic effects? That is to say, we would potentially look at all events outside our FE 'system' frozen in time due to the excessive time dilation effects.
These are just the first questions that occur to me.
1. stars exist in FE obviously, but they are not how RE discusses. as far as distance, i am not sure on that, not my specialty. but they are much smaller/closer.
2. all of them are relatively same distance away, all moving with us (same frame of reference)
3. reasonable assumption although cannot measure directly, as per response to #2 above
4. yes, there would be, but we wouldnt be able to see outside our observable universe. anything outside of that would be speculation.
5. based on response to #2, no. but as you note due to extreme dilation to any observable outsider, i agree and perhaps explains why we cant see anything outside of the view we have.
-
I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?
why wouldn't it?? who said FE doesnt follow many laws of physics?
Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE. In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity. If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.
-
I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?
why wouldn't it?? who said FE doesnt follow many laws of physics?
Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE. In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity. If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.
That is a huge mischaracterization. Einstein's work, as discussed here, dealt with the concept of the speed of light as an absolute limit, and what this means for high velocities. This was later generalised to general relativity and applied to acceleration. It was only after all of that when gravity even got a look-in, when he assumed its existence and, as forces cause acceleration, applied general relativity to it.
Everything preceding that, the vast majority of what people think of when they hear 'Einstein,' was entirely independent of gravity. The calculation limiting the addition of velocities to demonstrate that it can't reach the speed of light comes from special relativity, long before acceleration is accounted for and so long before gravity even could get involved. I don't accept UA, but I do accept Einstein. The theory of relativity only gives us a set of tools; they are tools misguided individuals have used to examine gravity, but that does not make gravity a required part of them.
-
Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE. In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity. If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.
wow, try again. you literally have no idea what you are talking about. Einstein would agree with the aspect of UA that you absolutely could not tell the difference between gravity on earth vs a gravity-less earth being accelerated at 1g
-
Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE. In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity. If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.
wow, try again. you literally have no idea what you are talking about. Einstein would agree with the aspect of UA that you absolutely could not tell the difference between gravity on earth vs a gravity-less earth being accelerated at 1g
Gravity is a force, UA is a force, to an observer they behave the same.
BUT
The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.
We have already easily measured the difference, so gravity is real.
Gravity would even be counteracted a little by the spin of the earth (which we have also measured and found to be true)
-
The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.
UA alone, perhaps, but the changes in perceived gravity (not to be confused with gravitation) are down to Celestial Gravitation, and not UA.
-
The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.
UA alone, perhaps, but the changes in perceived gravity (not to be confused with gravitation) are down to Celestial Gravitation, and not UA.
Hi folks new here and struggling to get a handle on this UA thing.
I’ve just read the FAQ and well it’s short and to the point which I like.
Gravity as described by Newton is now not a universally accepted model it kind of works for small scale maths but not on a scale of universal proportions.
Eisenstein and his theory of general relativity is all well and good and what we actually live in is a distortion in space time. It took a long time to get my head around gravitation lenses!
How does UA predictions stand up with reguards the bending of light due to mass and black holes?
Genuinely interested as I’ve just finished Stephen Hawkings’s books.
-
The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.
UA alone, perhaps, but the changes in perceived gravity (not to be confused with gravitation) are down to Celestial Gravitation, and not UA.
As mentioned later, the spin of the earth also applies force, and this is also measurable as a difference of roughly 0.03m/s² between the poles and the equator.
Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?
If not, then simply being able to measure this would work against those models, and in favor of the globe.
-
Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?
Again, CG. The correlation between latitude and measured discrepancies in gravity does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.
-
Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?
Again, CG. The correlation between latitude and measured discrepancies in gravity does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.
Hi Pete sorry for jumping in on this discussion.
I've had a read of the FAQ and am struggling to understand UA and CG. Is there some kind of unification of these two theories or are they two separate things?
The way it seems to me is that we stick on this disk as we are accelerating at a constant velocity of 9.81 ms2 which gives us 1g. the rest of the universe is doing what at this time? I'm guessing accelerating with us. CG is the other kind of gravity that holds the rest of the universe together?
-
Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?
Again, CG. The correlation between latitude and measured discrepancies in gravity does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.
CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.
It says that celestial objects attract objects on earth causing things to happen, but that is like saying that wind happens because of the breath of the people. It explains it a little without explaining anything.
It doesn't explain the tides happening both under the moon and the other side of he earth.
It doesn't explain the latitude difference in gravity.
It feels like an excuse not to think.
You made it up, but all the unexplained phenomenon in it, and just left it as an unexplained answer to anyone questioning those phenomenon.
Wait, you basically do this with everything, adding properties to perspective because you can't explain them, and more.
-
Hi Pete sorry for jumping in on this discussion.
I've had a read of the FAQ and am struggling to understand UA and CG. Is there some kind of unification of these two theories or are they two separate things?
The way it seems to me is that we stick on this disk as we are accelerating at a constant velocity of 9.81 ms2 which gives us 1g. the rest of the universe is doing what at this time? I'm guessing accelerating with us. CG is the other kind of gravity that holds the rest of the universe together?
That's pretty much it. Generally speaking, everything in the Flat Earth Model is affected by gravitation, much like it would in the round Earth model. The main difference is that it's a relatively weak force. While the brunt of the gravity we perceive comes from UA, precise measurements will reveal slight variances which are currently understood to be caused mainly by CG.
CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.
Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.
-
CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.
Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.
So your argument is that a completely vague theory is better than a theory which we can test and find to be incorrect?
I would argue that the scientific method is all about creating testable theories which we can validate or invalidate in search of truth. CG is basically just a word, where you put all the unknown force properties we can see and measure. Without any testable theory, it will be impossible to find truth.
-
Generally speaking, everything in the Flat Earth Model is affected by gravitation, much like it would in the round Earth model. The main difference is that it's a relatively weak force. While the brunt of the gravity we perceive comes from UA, precise measurements will reveal slight variances which are currently understood to be caused mainly by CG.
The force between two (point) masses is the product of the gravational constant G and the two masses, divided by the square of the distance between them. Does the same law apply with ‘celestial gravitation’?
If it attracts everything on the Flat Earth, as you explicitly assert, does it attract the whole of the Flat Earth itself? The obvious question is why the Earth and the celestial objects do not draw close to each other. In RET, this will not happen because of orbital mechanics, i.e. the moon does not crash to earth because it is orbiting the earth. But in FET it is not orbiting right round, but rather circling.
Why this does not happen needs to be explained (or shown, or demonstrated).
-
So your argument is that a completely vague theory is better than a theory which we can test and find to be incorrect?
I guess we disagree about the extent of vagueness here. But, in essence, yes: it is better to have a hypothesis which is consistent with observation, or even to acknowledge that you simply don't know something, than to cling to a theory which we know is incorrect. Naturally, the search doesn't stop there, and it hasn't stopped, but that's where we are right now.
-
CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.
Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.
What is normal in the pursuit of truth is to...well, pursue truth.
So where there are unknowns you take steps to try and make them known. I don't see that happening here. And OK, you don't have research budgets, but simple experiments have been proposed here which anyone could do and I don't see any effort from the FE community to do them.
The general way things have been discovered has been:
1) Make observation
2) Create hypothesis to explain observation
3) Devise experiment to test hypothesis.
If the results of 3 are in line with the hypothesis then this adds weight to the hypothesis and as more experiments are defined and match the hypothesis it builds more confidence. If experiments are not in line with the hypothesis then it must be amended or, possibly, scrapped entirely.
I don't see any of 3 going on.
So gravity explains why objects fall towards earth, it explains why the acceleration due to gravity is the same regardless of the mass of the object and it explains why the rate of acceleration varies depending on where you are on earth. It explains how planets orbit the sun and moons orbit their planets. It explains the trajectory of comets and other bodies. As a model of how the universe hangs together it works, it explains observations. Experiments like the Cavendish one give confidence in the idea that bodies attract one another.
For UA to be taken seriously as an alternative it has to be at least as good a model as gravity. It ticks the a couple of the boxes above but that's about it. The rest you start making up stuff like CG to explain the 3rd but it's a bit of a fudge. There's a lot of circular reasoning in FE, it often goes:
This hypothesis explains this observation
Where is the evidence for that hypothesis?
The observation.
It's like the old joke:
1st man in London: This rock repels tigers
2nd man: Does it work?
1st man: Do you see any tigers?
What are you guys actually doing to pursue truth and develop your theories and test them?
-
There's a lot of circular reasoning in FE, it often goes:
This hypothesis explains this observation
Where is the evidence for that hypothesis?
The observation.
What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.
-
Hi Pete sorry for jumping in on this discussion.
I've had a read of the FAQ and am struggling to understand UA and CG. Is there some kind of unification of these two theories or are they two separate things?
The way it seems to me is that we stick on this disk as we are accelerating at a constant velocity of 9.81 ms2 which gives us 1g. the rest of the universe is doing what at this time? I'm guessing accelerating with us. CG is the other kind of gravity that holds the rest of the universe together?
That's pretty much it. Generally speaking, everything in the Flat Earth Model is affected by gravitation, much like it would in the round Earth model. The main difference is that it's a relatively weak force. While the brunt of the gravity we perceive comes from UA, precise measurements will reveal slight variances which are currently understood to be caused mainly by CG.
CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.
Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.
Nope no issues here at all just seeking to further understand UA! So we get out weight from a constant acceleration got that bit and yup it works really well.
So we accelerate at 9.81 m/ss? This fits in nicely with everything yay science!
How long have we been accelerating? And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.
Oh is spherical some kind of thing I’m kind of flatnostic to be honest I kind of like the concept as it fits with what I can see with my own eyes but do have a few reservations when it comes to the physics of flat.
-
And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.
You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.
-
And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.
You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.
the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time
-
the value varies.
Yes, we already talked about that in this thread.
-
And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.
You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.
Erm not quite understanding this we perceive the acceleration while on Earth so is the Earth actually accelerating or not?
When I’m in a lift I perceive a local change in gravity during acceleration but then return to “normal “ gravity when speed is constant.
It’s just that the details say that we have gravity due to the acceleration of the Earth not a perceived acceleration. I’m not quite sure I grasp how a perceived acceleration can give us gravity.
-
And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.
You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.
the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time
Wow cool article.
Really interesting that you can use a very very accurate clock to measure the difference in gravity resolving with a change in height.
Erm how does this fit in with UA I thought the point was that the whole of our Flat Earth was perceived to be accelerating uniformly at 9.81 m/ss if there is a change with altitude how does this even work!
-
And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.
You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.
the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time
Wow cool article.
Really interesting that you can use a very very accurate clock to measure the difference in gravity resolving with a change in height.
Erm how does this fit in with UA I thought the point was that the whole of our Flat Earth was perceived to be accelerating uniformly at 9.81 m/ss if there is a change with altitude how does this even work!
Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273
-
Erm not quite understanding this we perceive the acceleration while on Earth so is the Earth actually accelerating or not?
Depends on the observer/frame of reference. Special Relativity is not always intuitive.
-
And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.
You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.
the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time
Wow cool article.
Really interesting that you can use a very very accurate clock to measure the difference in gravity resolving with a change in height.
Erm how does this fit in with UA I thought the point was that the whole of our Flat Earth was perceived to be accelerating uniformly at 9.81 m/ss if there is a change with altitude how does this even work!
Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273
Didn’t skim read article. Read it and understand that time will alter ever so slightly with a change in altitude due to the variation of the gravitational effect. We know that time and gravity are indeed linked the only constant in the universe is the speed of light.
The proof of local time was very welll described in one of Stephen Hawkings lectures that I read. I can put it here if you like it’s simple enough.
All I asked is how this fits in with a genuine interest in the UA model of the universe I seek an understanding of the thought process and the interaction between UA and CG
So I take mild offence at the accusations of snide comments.
If you have nothing constructive to say say nothing at all is what my good old(now dead) dad used to say.
-
Erm not quite understanding this we perceive the acceleration while on Earth so is the Earth actually accelerating or not?
Depends on the observer/frame of reference. Special Relativity is not always intuitive.
Oh OK could you help me get a better understanding of your understanding of general relativity I have my own preconceived ideas that may of course be completely wrong!
So far I have that the speed of light is constant. 180000 miles per second give or take.
If I fire a beam of light while traveling on a train at say 0.5 times the speed of light the distance traveled in my frame of reference would be 180000 miles per second however an observer outside of the train cannot see light traveling at 270000 miles per second so therefore the time it takes for the light to travel for the observer must be different.
Is this correct?
Sorry had to modify this as I forgot of course the light traveling a fixed distance duh!
-
Didn’t skim read article. Read it and understand that time will alter ever so slightly with a change in altitude due to the variation of the gravitational effect. We know that time and gravity are indeed linked the only constant in the universe is the speed of light.
The proof of local time was very welll described in one of Stephen Hawkings lectures that I read. I can put it here if you like it’s simple enough.
All I asked is how this fits in with a genuine interest in the UA model of the universe I seek an understanding of the thought process and the interaction between UA and CG
So I take mild offence at the accusations of snide comments.
If you have nothing constructive to say say nothing at all is what my good old(now dead) dad used to say.
Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273
-
What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.
But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.
There's a difference between saying:
"The sun should get smaller as it goes away from us"
"No, because there's an atmospheric effect which magnifies it as it goes away such that it appears the same size"
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well...the sun stays the same size..."
Now, if that's a straw man then tell me how. What other evidence is there for this atmospheric magnification? In the Wiki there's a picture of some lights which is clearly has a load of lens flare in, let's see some examples of lights through a filter which recede into the distance and yet stay the same size because you can find pictures of the sun which do just that.
Compare and contrast with the Cavendish Experiment. The theory says that there is a gravitational force between two bodies, you can calculate how much force is predicted by the theory and then test that.
-
What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.
But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.
There's a difference between saying:
"The sun should get smaller as it goes away from us"
"No, because there's an atmospheric effect which magnifies it as it goes away such that it appears the same size"
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well...the sun stays the same size..."
Now, if that's a straw man then tell me how. What other evidence is there for this atmospheric magnification? In the Wiki there's a picture of some lights which is clearly has a load of lens flare in, let's see some examples of lights through a filter which recede into the distance and yet stay the same size because you can find pictures of the sun which do just that.
The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example).
-
Didn’t skim read article. Read it and understand that time will alter ever so slightly with a change in altitude due to the variation of the gravitational effect. We know that time and gravity are indeed linked the only constant in the universe is the speed of light.
The proof of local time was very welll described in one of Stephen Hawkings lectures that I read. I can put it here if you like it’s simple enough.
All I asked is how this fits in with a genuine interest in the UA model of the universe I seek an understanding of the thought process and the interaction between UA and CG
So I take mild offence at the accusations of snide comments.
If you have nothing constructive to say say nothing at all is what my good old(now dead) dad used to say.
Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273
Started reading your works on DE. That’s a great start and a hell of a lot of work. It’s going to take some time to get through it you seem to have a great way of explaining some of the details that are missing with the standard FE model. How’s this being received?
Going to have to take a big more time to get the best out of it!
-
What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.
But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.
That's a flawed perspective. Those other experiments are still ultimately just observations, but putting the emphasis on prediction is to favor tradition over truth. That's not to say that experiments shouldn't be performed, they absolutely should, more and more data should always be amassed, but when all is said and done what matters is which model can explain all the chronicled observations, not which happened to be thought up first.
Further, what matters is a model as a whole, not an individual snippet. To use an example I'm sure you'd take issue with, one could easily say the Earth is flat because it seems that way to look out the window. Then to use your framing, the REer would be met with:
"We should observe the curvature of the Earth."
"No, because it is so large that the curvature cannot be easily observed."
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well... the curvature can't be seen out a window."
I'm sure you'd be first in line to point out that's unfair, and I'd agree; I wouldn't reject RET for that alone. No doubt you have several other factors which make you accept RET and, as a result, accept the necessary subsequent claims such as that large curvature. The same is true for FET; when something is a necessary consequence of a theory, and you have seen convincing evidence for said theory, then you must accept those consequences.
It's not to say those consequences can't be examined or disproved, but such things shouldn't be assumed.
-
The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example).
Those examples clearly show a load of lens flare.
The examples I'm talking about of the sun show it as a clear disc, filtered such that all glare and lens flare is not present.
Your examples are not filtered enough to show that.
-
The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example).
Those examples clearly show a load of lens flare.
The examples I'm talking about of the sun show it as a clear disc, filtered such that all glare and lens flare is not present.
Your examples are not filtered enough to show that.
What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.
The filtered images of the sun as a disc that you are talking about are not consistently bright, suggesting that it is not a solid body.
A recent addition to the wiki article:
Sun Brightness Inconsistent
Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is a solid object where every point from the sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. As a solid body, one should expect to see all parts of the sun with equal intensity.
Take a photo of a Solar Eclipse, which are often taken through a solar filter, and then modify the brightness and contrast settings in order to bring out the areas of the image which are the brightest:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c0/Solar_eclipse_brightness.gif)
Compare that to the hotspotting seen in a projector's image on a screen:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/b/b9/Projector_hotspotting.png/380px-Projector_hotspotting.png)
Source: Hotspotting or brightness inhomogeneity (https://www.jennyreadresearch.com/research/lab-set-up/experience-with-christie-matrix-2500-lcd-projectors/hotspotting-or-brightness-inhomogeneity/)
-
What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.
tbh 100% polarized doesn't make any sense. polarization isn't a thing that is fractional. polarization describes the orientation of em waves.
i'm guessing you're thinking of the "100% uv protection" thing that sunglasses advertise for their lenses. that's not relevant to your image, though.
Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is a solid object where every point from the sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. As a solid body, one should expect to see all parts of the sun with equal intensity.
no, you wouldn't. the sun is a sphere. draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux). now rotate the sphere. from your perspective, what happens to the box? the projected area of the box shrinks.
here's an example. notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere. if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges.
(https://i.imgur.com/tmpdizT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/G5jKHsr.png)
-
no, you wouldn't. the sun is a sphere. draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux). now rotate the sphere. from your perspective, what happens to the box? the projected area of the box shrinks.
here's an example. notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere. if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges.
If we are seeing more miles of the sun's surface per pixel near the edges, then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.
-
no, you wouldn't. the sun is a sphere. draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux). now rotate the sphere. from your perspective, what happens to the box? the projected area of the box shrinks.
here's an example. notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere. if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges.
Then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.
what? that doesn't make any sense at all. smaller area means less flux. you are seeing less area at the edges. look at the image i posted.
-
no, you wouldn't. the sun is a sphere. draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux). now rotate the sphere. from your perspective, what happens to the box? the projected area of the box shrinks.
here's an example. notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere. if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges.
Then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.
what? that doesn't make any sense at all. smaller area means less flux. you are seeing less area at the edges. look at the image i posted.
I looked at the image. The countries get smooshed together at the edges. Around the edges you are seeing more miles per pixel.
If the sun is a sphere then we are seeing more miles per pixel near the edges of the sun, and so that is where it should be the brightest.
-
I looked at the image. The countries get smooshed together at the edges. Around the edges you are seeing more miles per pixel.
If the sun is a sphere then we are seeing more miles per pixel near the edges of the sun, and so that is where it should be the brightest.
lol. more miles per pixel. okay. i'll let you think about that one for a bit.
the total flux in this case is given by flux density * area, and the flux density is constant. if the area shrinks, then the total flux shrinks, too. by definition.
-
But the area per pixel/arcsecond increased at the edges, so the intensity should increase when you are looking at more area. You are looking at more area of the sun when you are looking at its edges.
Photons are additive. See the following from physics.stackexchange.com: (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/192768/why-intensity-of-lightwave-is-proportional-to-the-square-of-its-amplitude)
However, the amplitude of a light wave depends on the number of photons per second being emitted. The greater the amplitude of a certain type of light, the greater the number of photons per second of that type of light. So if you want to compare intensity of similar types of light, the amplitude is the variable of choice.
When light waves interfere with each other, areas of greater intensity result when photons pile on top of each other, and this is measured by the greater amplitude.
Since you are looking at more area per pixel/arcsecond near the edges, the photons should build up there.
-
What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.
Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.
The filtered images of the sun as a disc that you are talking about are not consistently bright, suggesting that it is not a solid body.
Nothing to do with what we're talking about, but OK. I thought the FE sun was also a ball which light shines out of in equal directions, the spotlight effect is merely an effect of your made up perspective model. So if that is a problem, it's a problem for you too.
That Wiki page is just another example of you not understanding something and thinking that you have discovered a problem in RE. You haven't.
In brief, the sun is not a simple lightbulb. If you filter it you see all kinds of complexities in its surface.
(http://www.sheetmusictips.com/Images/Sun.jpg)
-
Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.
Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is those direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."
That Wiki page is just another example of you not understanding something and thinking that you have discovered a problem in RE. You haven't.
It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.
They had to make the outer visible layer of the sun, the Photosphere, super cold... at only about 6000 degrees Celsius compared to the much hotter Chromosphere, the sun's atmosphere, which is seen as a wispy cloud at total Solar Eclipse, at up to several million degrees Kelvin, and compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the inner center. They also had to make the outer Photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm
The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. The solution will help scientists better understand the heating of other stars.
"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense!" —Dr David H. Brooks (George Mason University)
Also: The Mystery of the Chromosphere (http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1996SoPh..169..313Z&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES)
-
But the area per pixel/arcsecond increased at the edges, so the intensity should increase when you are looking at more area. You are looking at more area of the sun when you are looking at its edges.
Photons are additive. See the following from physics.stackexchange.com: (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/192768/why-intensity-of-lightwave-is-proportional-to-the-square-of-its-amplitude)
However, the amplitude of a light wave depends on the number of photons per second being emitted. The greater the amplitude of a certain type of light, the greater the number of photons per second of that type of light. So if you want to compare intensity of similar types of light, the amplitude is the variable of choice.
When light waves interfere with each other, areas of greater intensity result when photons pile on top of each other, and this is measured by the greater amplitude.
Since you are looking at more area per pixel/arcsecond near the edges, the photons should build up there.
Simple experiment.
If you have a flat light, or watch a white screen tv set in a dark room, you can see the TV from the side and see way more pixels in a smaller area...
Now, if you take a look at the light emitted by the TV, does it look to be brighter at areas straight to the left and right of it, or brighter in front of it?
Use any example you wish of a surface light, and you will see the same result, it is lighter in front than at the sides, meaning your logic doesn't make sense in the real world.
I do get your logic though, but in this case it doesn't work like that.
-
Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is that direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."
I'm pretty sure that isn't what polarized lenses do, and at best they will cut out half the light - because light can be polarized in two directions - which means yes, they will reduce glare but they do not completely eliminate it and your "examples" prove that, you can clearly see glare in those photos. Try looking at the sun with polarized sunglasses on, see how that goes (actually, don't, you'll probably damage your eyesight). A proper solar filter eliminates almost ALL the light, it has to because the sun is so bright.
https://www.celestron.com/blogs/knowledgebase/how-does-a-solar-filter-work
It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.
Far as I understood your sun is the same as the RE one, just smaller and closer and powered by...something. So why is this not a problem for FE too?
I'm not saying that everything about the sun is understood. Or, if it is, it's not understood by me. But I don't see what point you're making. I mean, you don't understand anything about your made up sun. You don't know how it's powered, why it goes in the orbit it does, what force keeps changing its orbit - if it's going in a circle there must be a force to make it do so, and forces to keep changing height and orbit diameter to cause seasons and moon phases. Your answer to all of this is "unknown". Yet you're claiming that some gaps in knowledge in real science are in some way telling? We understand a lot more than we used to about all kinds of things but it would be arrogant to think we've understood everything. That doesn't mean that everything we've discovered is wrong.
-
So bringing this back to the original title. And how I got interested in the topic was to further understand the current understanding of gravity in a flat earth.
I’ve been told it’s due to UA. Ok that’s good. I’ve been told that there is this notional CG that explains the tides. I made a bit of a light hearted suggestion that what happens when we stop accelerating. I was told about Special relativity and good old Eisenstein and I needed to understand this. He was the one that said a rightly so that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable to the observer within the bounds of the observers reality.
However the problem comes with the oft quote E= mc^2.
The way you need to understand this is that mass increases the faster you get. Now at slow speeds of which we are always working at it makes little difference to our ways of calculating such things as trajectory of canon balls etc. We can use Newton for that.
However it does when you start looking at the mass of the earth and the UA theory. The closer any object gets to the speed of light the greater it’s mass becomes until such a point that it has infinite mass and therefore requires an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any further.
I believe this is the point the OP some while ago was trying to make and something that I was trying to resolve.
The accurate clock link given had nothing really to do with this other than to confirm the theory of general relativity which also stated that gravity has an affect on time.
You see I really do understand the general theory of relativity and how UA couldn’t possibly work. Well not in this universe. As currently we are now happy to accept that there is a high probability that there are an infinite amount of universes which we will never get too and these in all probability will have different laws of physics and may well support a working model that allows for a flat earth system.
-
actually come to think of it, my explanation for limb darkening is not right. as a source of flux, the sun's surface brightness should be constant. it's dimmer near the edges for a different reason (http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/limb/limb.html).
Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is those direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."
no. polarization is about the orientation of a light wave wrt the direction of propagation. polarized lenses filter out some range of orientations. if the object is super bright, it can still be super bright in the orientations that are not filtered out.
It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.
They had to make the outer visible layer of the sun, the Photosphere, super cold... at only about 6000 degrees Celsius compared to the much hotter Chromosphere, the sun's atmosphere, which is seen as a wispy cloud at total Solar Eclipse, at up to several million degrees Kelvin, and compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the inner center. They also had to make the outer Photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm
this is a different thing altogether. i mean you're correct that the sun's atmosphere is super puzzling to physicists, but that's not why the limb of the disk appears to darken.
-
Fantastic logic. Your assumptions are "there's no need to consider reality if I can just divide numbers by one another".
Why not multiply them, instead? You'll be equally correct. Wait, no, let's add them! That will be fun!
Special Relativity is absolutely essential here. If you really want to identify which of your statements is wrong, it's the first one - because you didn't specify the frame of reference, and coincidentally happened to switcheroo between two of them throughout your reasoning.
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Yes please that would be perfect a few things first as to do this properly we need to agree on certain things OK
I will agree for sake of argument the the earth plane is accelerating at a constant rate of change of 9.81 m/ss.
Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2 hold true.
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.
-
Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2 hold true.
of course
-
Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2 hold true.
of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?
-
Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2 hold true.
of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?
Why don't you do the math? It only takes a few moments.
-
Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2 hold true.
of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?
I'll give you a hint. As of where we are at the time of this posting going forward, we are accelerating from 0 towards c. Relativity. Isn't it fun? (I know this is heavily simplified, and perhaps borders on incorrect, but to my knowledge it's close enough. Attempting to argue this point will get you nowhere, they are quite firmly covered by GR and SR.)
-
Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.
Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is those direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."
Wrong, polarised lenses cut light from specific angles and that is why you can rotate them to find the angle of the glare.
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.
That is not an answer. Let me try again. Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up? "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.
That is not an answer. Let me try again. Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up? "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.
The earth and everything we observe is being accellerated upward, not too difficult to understand. The ground, air, everything moving up at the same. Same mechanics involved wth air moving with a rotating globe. If you think you have some gotcha question, go ahead and ask
-
Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2 hold true.
of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?
Do you think an object of mass can reach the speed of light?? Already established UA accepts special relativity.
-
So, Earth is not stationary? I've seen ststic model represented in other sites. They disown this group and it's premise of UA theory. Not sure which one to believe.
-
So, Earth is not stationary? I've seen ststic model represented in other sites. They disown this group and it's premise of UA theory. Not sure which one to believe.
the two main ones i have studied are UA and infinite plane. infinite plane utilizes traditional gravity and stationary earth. the third i have read about involves density, but that is not really subscribed to on this site.
-
So, Earth is not stationary? I've seen ststic model represented in other sites. They disown this group and it's premise of UA theory. Not sure which one to believe.
I believe static but rotating, not the density model.
Which one you believe is up to you. That's what sets FET above RET: you have the freedom to make up your own mind, not to just follow the leader. Look up flaws, strengths, assumptions, ccomparisons...
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.
That is not an answer. Let me try again. Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up? "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.
The earth and everything we observe is being accellerated upward, not too difficult to understand. The ground, air, everything moving up at the same. Same mechanics involved wth air moving with a rotating globe. If you think you have some gotcha question, go ahead and ask
No gotcha questions and no need to be your usual condescending self. Try to just talk for a change. Just curious. Why do things appear to fall if they too are accelerating? Seems to me they would appear to float not fall. I can only assume you mean the ground is pushing the air but can't say it for some reason?
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.
That is not an answer. Let me try again. Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up? "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.
Air, ground, objects would not be directly accelerated by UA. They would be indirectly accelerated. Imagine a basin of some sort that the earth sits in, this basin would be pushed upwards and everything on top of it is pushed against it. If air, ground, objects were directly accelerated they would not fall to the ground when dropped.
This basin would need to be quite deep. People have drilled more than 4 miles deep without finding any bottom.
There are several problems this model brings up:
* We measure different gravities at different areas of the earth at the same elevation. If we are going to allow mass derived gravitational attraction we could envision different densities of the underlying ground to cause this.
* We also measure lower gravity as altitude increases. If we are going to allow mass derived gravitational attraction we could envision that we are not being accelerated upwards at 9.81m/s^2, but at a somewhat lower rate and the difference is made up by the mass of the ground beneath us. As we increase elevation we get farther from this mass so the force decreases. I haven't done the math, but, I'm suspicious this would not calculate out.
* What about the other things that are not being accelerated up? Sun, moon, stars. They must also be accelerated upwards directly or they would fall to the ground. This is difficult to resolve.
* Seismic analysis doesn't line up with a flat plane very well. Since at least the early 1900's people have been analyzing volcanos and earthquakes and measuring seismic waves recorded at different areas of the world. Using the RE locations of the volcano/earthquake and the RE location of the seismic recording stations people analyze the structure of the earth's core. The problems these bring up for a flat plane are significant. Below are a few articles about the RE core analysis. I can't resolve this information with either UA or infinite plane, maybe someone else has some thoughts.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth520/content/l2_p25.html
https://sciencing.com/gutenberg-discontinuity-8747365.html
https://sciencing.com/do-scientists-structure-earths-interior-8695198.html
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/12/981211083655.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180627160232.htm
-
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag? It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.
The same reason as described in RET/Gravity. why wouldnt air/drag affect an object? both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward. so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects. if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA
lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.
That is not an answer. Let me try again. Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up? "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.
Air, ground, objects would not be directly accelerated by UA. They would be indirectly accelerated. Imagine a basin of some sort that the earth sits in, this basin would be pushed upwards and everything on top of it is pushed against it. If air, ground, objects were directly accelerated they would not fall to the ground when dropped.
This basin would need to be quite deep. People have drilled more than 4 miles deep without finding any bottom.
That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers. It was not a hard question. The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge. This can be very easily demonstrated.
-
That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers. It was not a hard question. The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge. This can be very easily demonstrated.
you are asking a question that is already common knowledge with UA. Its pretty clear that it states there is a force being applied to the earth to push it upward. how do you apply a force to air as well? sorry i didnt understand your question, i really didnt think you were asking if the force is applied to the air. of course its applied to the solid structure of earth and everything goes up with. why on earth would air be pushed up and over an edge????
easily demonstrated?? how?
-
That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers. It was not a hard question. The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge. This can be very easily demonstrated.
you are asking a question that is already common knowledge with UA. Its pretty clear that it states there is a force being applied to the earth to push it upward. how do you apply a force to air as well? sorry i didnt understand your question, i really didnt think you were asking if the force is applied to the air. of course its applied to the solid structure of earth and everything goes up with. why on earth would air be pushed up and over an edge????
easily demonstrated?? how?
Nothing needs to be pushing the earth upwards for the atmosphere to leak over the edge. Gas naturally flows from high pressure to low.
If you want a flat earth to have an atmosphere then you're going to need a dome to keep it in, which I know some FE models have.
-
That is what I was looking for but Round Eyes can't seem to give straight answers. It was not a hard question. The next obvious question if the ground is pushing the air up, why does in not flow over the edge. This can be very easily demonstrated.
you are asking a question that is already common knowledge with UA. Its pretty clear that it states there is a force being applied to the earth to push it upward. how do you apply a force to air as well?
Its handled quite well in RE with gravity, it's why lighter gases rise and heavier gases sink. Buy some dry ice and you can witness this for yourself. How to apply force to air. How about a fan, or a plane (not an airplane) moving through it? Get a cutting board and move it through the air. Hang it out the window of a moving car. Force applied to air. Simple stuff.
sorry i didnt understand your question, i really didnt think you were asking if the force is applied to the air. of course its applied to the solid structure of earth and everything goes up with. why on earth would air be pushed up and over an edge????
Why does everything go up with it? Maybe a force is being applied to air?
easily demonstrated?? how?
It's called fluid dynamics. Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air. Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge? You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.
On that note, please explain why lighter gases rise and heavier ones sink under UA? What mechanism allows helium to outrun the acceleration while CO2 is pulled down? Gravity explains that quite well.
-
It's called fluid dynamics. Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air. Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge? You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.
thats a pretty horrible way to think about things. based on the way you think, then i should just post the funny youtube video of the guys pouring water on a bowling ball. "look all the water flys off the ball! globe earth is fake!" geez, come on
now take a similar comparison, one more comprable. the air inside of an airplane moving 350 mph. is all the air compressed to the back of the plane? is the jet engine directly applying force to the air? no. its all moving the same speed as the plane itself, the object in contact with air is applying a force/pressure on the air and its acting accoringly.
this is a pretty poor attempt to disprove UA..and you think its a "gotcha question" which i knew you were getting too and for some reason you said you werent. lets not lie about our intentions here, its fine to question FET and fight against it, just dont say you're not
there are some other major flaws in UA theory that you havent even hit on. I dont prescribe to UA i am just trying to answer questions on it.
-
It's called fluid dynamics. Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air. Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge? You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.
thats a pretty horrible way to think about things. based on the way you think, then i should just post the funny youtube video of the guys pouring water on a bowling ball. "look all the water flys off the ball! globe earth is fake!" geez, come on
now take a similar comparison, one more comprable. the air inside of an airplane moving 350 mph. is all the air compressed to the back of the plane? is the jet engine directly applying force to the air? no. its all moving the same speed as the plane itself, the object in contact with air is applying a force/pressure on the air and its acting accoringly.
this is a pretty poor attempt to disprove UA..and you think its a "gotcha question" which i knew you were getting too and for some reason you said you werent. lets not lie about our intentions here, its fine to question FET and fight against it, just dont say you're not
there are some other major flaws in UA theory that you havent even hit on. I dont prescribe to UA i am just trying to answer questions on it.
TomInAustin, FE often includes either a wall or dome to hold in the air. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity so air is held down and the wall or dome would hold it in.
Round Eyes, good analogy about air in an airplane. This works well when the plane is traveling at a mostly constant speed. Denser gasses rise and less dense gasses sink. When the plane is taking off, however, it's accelerating so denser gasses get pushed back and less dense gasses get pushed forward. If you've been in a car with a helium balloon you get to experience the strange phenomenon where the balloon rushed to the front when you accelerate.
I agree, this line of questioning doesn't seem to have a fruitful end to poke a hole in UA. TomInAustin, could you help us out and skip forward a bit? Do you have something in mind at the end of this questioning?
Note: I don't ascribe to UA either. I see the earth being a large mass attracting things to it, I call this gravity. This is an interesting thought experiment, though.
-
It's called fluid dynamics. Again, try the dry ice, take the cutting board you already have out, put a cup of water and dry ice on it, move the board up and see what happens to the vapor that is an analog for air. Does it move straight up or does it roll over the edge? You can see this and it fits the model of observable results.
thats a pretty horrible way to think about things. based on the way you think, then i should just post the funny youtube video of the guys pouring water on a bowling ball. "look all the water flys off the ball! globe earth is fake!" geez, come on
now take a similar comparison, one more comprable. the air inside of an airplane moving 350 mph. is all the air compressed to the back of the plane? is the jet engine directly applying force to the air? no. its all moving the same speed as the plane itself, the object in contact with air is applying a force/pressure on the air and its acting accoringly.
this is a pretty poor attempt to disprove UA..and you think its a "gotcha question" which i knew you were getting too and for some reason you said you werent. lets not lie about our intentions here, its fine to question FET and fight against it, just dont say you're not
there are some other major flaws in UA theory that you havent even hit on. I dont prescribe to UA i am just trying to answer questions on it.
Don't flatter yourself. These are not gotcha questions. And your aircraft analogy does not work as the closed system contains the air just as gravity creates a closed system around the globe. What closes the system in FE. A dome, a wall, what? If you put air in over a moving surface you will be applying force and yes, compressing the air. Basic science.
My intentions are the same as they have always been. Like Curious Squirrel said, this is nothing more than a thought experiment. I just like to see what makes people believe what they do and what sort of proof they have.
I noticed you dodged all the rest. Why do lighter gases outrun the UA by rising?
-
TomInAustin, FE often includes either a wall or dome to hold in the air. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity so air is held down and the wall or dome would hold it in.
Yes I am familiar with the concepts. Dome, wall, etc.
Round Eyes, good analogy about air in an airplane. This works well when the plane is traveling at a mostly constant speed. Denser gasses rise and less dense gasses sink. When the plane is taking off, however, it's accelerating so denser gasses get pushed back and less dense gasses get pushed forward. If you've been in a car with a helium balloon you get to experience the strange phenomenon where the balloon rushed to the front when you accelerate.
Good point but only if the gas is also accelerating. Again it's in a closed system.
I agree, this line of questioning doesn't seem to have a fruitful end to poke a hole in UA. TomInAustin, could you help us out and skip forward a bit? Do you have something in mind at the end of this questioning?
What would you consider fruitful questions? Sunrise, spotlight sun, ice wall, distance from New York to Paris? These have been beaten to death but I have not seen these questions asked. Certainly not is the air being pushed by UA? Or why does a light gas rise in UA? That makes zero sense unless there is a dome.
-
Hello, complete crazy people! :D So, I was just wondering how on (round) Earth anyone can believe what you do.
great post, thanks for contributing
-
TomInAustin, FE often includes either a wall or dome to hold in the air. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity so air is held down and the wall or dome would hold it in.
Yes I am familiar with the concepts. Dome, wall, etc.
Round Eyes, good analogy about air in an airplane. This works well when the plane is traveling at a mostly constant speed. Denser gasses rise and less dense gasses sink. When the plane is taking off, however, it's accelerating so denser gasses get pushed back and less dense gasses get pushed forward. If you've been in a car with a helium balloon you get to experience the strange phenomenon where the balloon rushed to the front when you accelerate.
Good point but only if the gas is also accelerating. Again it's in a closed system.
I agree, this line of questioning doesn't seem to have a fruitful end to poke a hole in UA. TomInAustin, could you help us out and skip forward a bit? Do you have something in mind at the end of this questioning?
What would you consider fruitful questions? Sunrise, spotlight sun, ice wall, distance from New York to Paris? These have been beaten to death but I have not seen these questions asked. Certainly not is the air being pushed by UA? Or why does a light gas rise in UA? That makes zero sense unless there is a dome.
all over the place here. why wouldnt earth be a closed system? we are not talking about a sudden acceleration that just started. that would cause air to "swoosh" for lack of a better term. but we are talking about an acceleration over a very long period of time. why wouldnt the air equalize?
-
all over the place here. why wouldnt earth be a closed system? we are not talking about a sudden acceleration that just started. that would cause air to "swoosh" for lack of a better term. but we are talking about an acceleration over a very long period of time. why wouldnt the air equalize?
...but you are talking about acceleration. If you're on a plane then when the plane accelerates to take off you're pushed back in your seat, when it is going at a constant speed you're not, because you're going at the same velocity as the plane. The movement hasn't stopped, the acceleration has. But in the UA model the acceleration is constant, so the swoosh would be constant.
If you accept that space is a vaccuum and the earth isn't then what is stopping the high pressure over the plane from leaking out over the edges into space as it is accelerated upwards?
-
all over the place here. why wouldnt earth be a closed system? we are not talking about a sudden acceleration that just started. that would cause air to "swoosh" for lack of a better term. but we are talking about an acceleration over a very long period of time. why wouldnt the air equalize?
If you accept that space is a vaccuum and the earth isn't
you answered your own question. if one is a vacuum and the other isnt....closed syste. what the mechanics are that creates that, well i could make up something like you guys do, or i can be honest and say i dont know. i choose to be honest.
-
If we can all agree that there is a force/ acceleration, apparent or not, acting 'downwards' then we can all agree that on both a flat Earth and a globe the atmospheric pressure will be exponentially decreasing. The barometric formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula) developed by Boltzman, with its foundation in statistical mechanics, makes no assumption on the shape of the Earth. All that is assumed is that there is an acceleration that is constant in height (a fair one for the globe theory). The exponential decrease in pressure is purely a consequence of the statistical thermodynamics and says nothing on the shape of the Earth or whether or not there is gravity.
Just to be more explicit. Here is the important line in the Wikipedia article:
Assuming constant temperature, molar mass, and gravitational acceleration, we get the barometric formula...
So, for all theories there should be a vacuum at very high altitudes.
-
all over the place here. why wouldnt earth be a closed system? we are not talking about a sudden acceleration that just started. that would cause air to "swoosh" for lack of a better term. but we are talking about an acceleration over a very long period of time. why wouldnt the air equalize?
If you accept that space is a vaccuum and the earth isn't
you answered your own question. if one is a vacuum and the other isnt....closed syste. what the mechanics are that creates that, well i could make up something like you guys do, or i can be honest and say i dont know. i choose to be honest.
OK, firstly, I don't know what you mean by "you guys". You don't believe in a flat earth.
But more importantly, I don't see how your post follows on from mine at all.
In what sense is the earth and the space around it a closed system? The earth is a disc which has an atmosphere above it.
The space around it is a vacuum.
If you accept these two things then there is nothing to stop the high pressure over the disc leaking out into the vacuum.
Your two possible solutions here, that I can think of, are a physical dome or that the plane the earth is on is infinite and the atmosphere has already equalised across it.