Thork

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2015, 12:25:17 PM »
Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.
Those who use Einstein's reasoning to support the UA don't understand that the equivalence principle only applies to homogenous gravitational fields.  Once tidal forces or any other miscellaneous influences are introduced, the EP no longer applies.
Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be? Should traders be selling their products during neap tides? Do NASA schedule rocket launches around these events? Are long jump and javelin records dependant on the celestial bodies? Do snipers adjust for celestial gravitation?

This is madness. You can throw in Round Earth Theory, but don't state it as fact without verifiable evidence.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #61 on: January 15, 2015, 02:44:02 PM »
Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.
Those who use Einstein's reasoning to support the UA don't understand that the equivalence principle only applies to homogenous gravitational fields.  Once tidal forces or any other miscellaneous influences are introduced, the EP no longer applies.
Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be?
To a very small extent, yes.

Should traders be selling their products during neap tides?
It depends on what they're selling.

Do NASA schedule rocket launches around these events?
I suppose that would depend on the particular mission.

Are long jump and javelin records dependant on the celestial bodies? Do snipers adjust for celestial gravitation?
To a very small extent, yes.  However, the wind would be a far greater influence.

This is madness.
Yes, Thork, it seems that you are finally succumbing to your own madness.  Such a shame.  :'(

You can throw in Round Earth Theory, but don't state it as fact without verifiable evidence.
Are you saying that very sensitive gravimeters aren't verifiable?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

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

Thork

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #62 on: January 15, 2015, 03:51:20 PM »
So everything is either "to a small extent" to the point where there is no real world example, or it "depends" on all kinds of unspecified factors, or it can be demonstrated on a device that measures a thing I'm telling you doesn't exist in the first place.

Good job, Markjo. Way to rebut.

Rama Set

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #63 on: January 15, 2015, 04:39:01 PM »
So everything is either "to a small extent" to the point where there is no real world example, or it "depends" on all kinds of unspecified factors, or it can be demonstrated on a device that measures a thing I'm telling you doesn't exist in the first place.

Good job, Markjo. Way to rebut.

I suppose the truth should not get in the way of a good rebuttal.

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #64 on: January 15, 2015, 06:00:45 PM »
Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be? Should traders be selling their products during neap tides?

This is maybe my favorite Thork argument.  I don't think you understand how commodities are traded.

Let's suppose we live in some wacky world where I trade commodities by always weighing them out in front of the buyer or seller and for some reason getting to choose the time and place of weighing.  I want to take advantage of the gravitational effects of the Moon to flip 1 kilogram of gold for a profit; so, I buy my kilogram of gold and wait to sell it until the Moon is directly beneath me in its orbit around the Earth (thus pulling the kilogram of gold toward the scale and increasing its weight).

How much extra cash would I net?  Not much.  Newton's Laws predict that the Moon would increase its weight by only 0.0000311 Newtons, or 0.000003171 kilograms-force

Gold currently sells for $40,500 per kilogram.  So, for each kilogram you bought and sold in this manner, you'd net $0.12.

Even if commodities were traded in such an absurd manner, I don't see how this illustrates an inconsistency with gravitation.

*I haven't taken a physics course in over a decade.  Someone correct me if I'm getting these relationship all wrong.  It's a definite possibility.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #65 on: January 15, 2015, 06:43:40 PM »
Sorry if this question was already asked before (I assume regular readers will be able to redirect me to possible answers):

If the feeling of gravity is actually the result of upwards acceleration, how is it that you weigh less when you're in altitude?

EDIT: I see that another thread (g is not homogenous) covers the same topic... I'll read it first and see if I find a satisfactory answer.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 07:04:11 PM by Sceptom »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #66 on: January 15, 2015, 07:33:47 PM »
Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be? Should traders be selling their products during neap tides?

This is maybe my favorite Thork argument.  I don't think you understand how commodities are traded.

Let's suppose we live in some wacky world where I trade commodities by always weighing them out in front of the buyer or seller and for some reason getting to choose the time and place of weighing.  I want to take advantage of the gravitational effects of the Moon to flip 1 kilogram of gold for a profit; so, I buy my kilogram of gold and wait to sell it until the Moon is directly beneath me in its orbit around the Earth (thus pulling the kilogram of gold toward the scale and increasing its weight).

How much extra cash would I net?  Not much.  Newton's Laws predict that the Moon would increase its weight by only 0.0000311 Newtons, or 0.000003171 kilograms-force

Gold currently sells for $40,500 per kilogram.  So, for each kilogram you bought and sold in this manner, you'd net $0.12.

Even if commodities were traded in such an absurd manner, I don't see how this illustrates an inconsistency with gravitation.

*I haven't taken a physics course in over a decade.  Someone correct me if I'm getting these relationship all wrong.  It's a definite possibility.
You forgot three minor issues. First you should include the diameter of earth in "r". This correction lessens the profit by about a mil. Second, the moon's orbit is not such that it will be directly underneath, though over the course of a year, it will be about once. Third, gold is traded by mass, not weight. See: http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/GD_Rules3.pdf Annex G.

So nope. Thork is wrong.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #67 on: January 15, 2015, 07:45:16 PM »
First you should include the diameter of earth in "r". This correction lessens the profit by about a mil.
No, it increases it, as long as we assume that the gold is located on the earth's surface (and RET, of course). The shortest possible distance between the moon and the gold (at which the moon would theoretically lower the weight the most) lowers by the radius of earth, while the greatest possible distance increases by it. The overall amplitude therefore increases by the earth's diameter from Gary's estimation.

Third, gold is traded by mass, not weight. See: http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/GD_Rules3.pdf Annex G.
The assumption that gold is traded by weight was specified by Gary in his post for the sake of an argument. Pointing out that an assumption in a proof by contradiction is incorrect is a redundant statement.

So nope. Thork is wrong.
Well, of course.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #68 on: January 15, 2015, 07:51:44 PM »
First you should include the diameter of earth in "r". This correction lessens the profit by about a mil.
No, it increases it, as long as we assume that the gold is located on the earth's surface (and RET, of course). The shortest possible distance between the moon and the gold (at which the moon would theoretically lower the weight the most) lowers by the radius of earth, while the greatest possible distance increases by it. The overall amplitude therefore increases by the earth's diameter from Gary's estimation.
The force, and therefore the weight, and therefore the profit by weight, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Gary probably understated that distance. The larger the distance, the less the profit.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #69 on: January 15, 2015, 08:37:39 PM »
So everything is either "to a small extent" to the point where there is no real world example, or it "depends" on all kinds of unspecified factors...
Yup, pretty much.

...or it can be demonstrated on a device that measures a thing I'm telling you doesn't exist in the first place.
Do you understand the difference between a scale and a balance?

Good job, Markjo. Way to rebut.
I'd say that my rebuttal is at least as strong as your assertion.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

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

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #70 on: January 15, 2015, 09:14:51 PM »
The force, and therefore the weight, and therefore the profit by weight, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Gary probably understated that distance. The larger the distance, the less the profit.
No, the larger the difference between the squares of the two distances, the greater the profit. Perhaps an illustration of the situation considered will be helpful here:

(Attention, Round Earthers: not to scale)

The mass of the gold (m) and the moon (M) should hopefully not change throughout the experiment. The difference between R1 and R2 will be affected by 2 things: the shape of the orbit (which I'm ignoring here, since it doesn't have to do with your misled objection) and the radius of the earth. In the case of R2, including the radius of the earth diminishes the distance between the gold and the moon, but in case of R1 it increases it. As such, the difference between the distances becomes greater, and thus the difference between the two results of %5Cfrac%7BGMm%7D%7BR%5E2%7D increases (note that G, M and m are constant, so R2 is the only relevant factor) also increases, and thus the difference between weights measured increases. This, in our hypothetical scenario (we calculate price from weight, we buy at the lowest weight available and sell at the highest weight available) means that including the earth's radius in the calculation does indeed increase our calculated profit. Omitting the radius of the earth would place the piece of gold right at its core, thus reducing the difference between the two distances, and, conversely, the cost.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 09:35:45 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Rama Set

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #71 on: January 15, 2015, 10:33:12 PM »
buy when R2 is high and sell when it is low.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #72 on: January 15, 2015, 10:40:24 PM »
buy when R2 is high and sell when it is low.
Why would you buy when R2 exists at all (i.e. the moon is behind the earth and pulls down on your precious gold) when you can simply buy in case of R1 (moon directly above you, pulling your precious gold away from earth and making it lighter == cheaper)?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 10:42:41 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Rama Set

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #73 on: January 15, 2015, 11:41:27 PM »
buy when R2 is high and sell when it is low.
Why would you buy when R2 exists at all (i.e. the moon is behind the earth and pulls down on your precious gold) when you can simply buy in case of R1 (moon directly above you, pulling your precious gold away from earth and making it lighter == cheaper)?

Mostly because I was confused by your diagram and meant the opposite. Gah!

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #74 on: January 15, 2015, 11:43:15 PM »
Mostly because I was confused by your diagram and meant the opposite. Gah!
I bet you were stunned by the earth's handsome visage.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2015, 12:23:32 AM »
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #76 on: January 16, 2015, 12:25:07 AM »
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #77 on: January 16, 2015, 12:30:42 AM »
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Drop an apple. Apple falls down.

Or, to spell it out for our friend AMann, the earth accelerates upward to meet the apple.

Rama Set

Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #78 on: January 16, 2015, 12:58:51 AM »
Mostly because I was confused by your diagram and meant the opposite. Gah!
I bet you were stunned by the earth's handsome visage.

Not only flat but mansome.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: No gravity on Earth
« Reply #79 on: January 16, 2015, 01:33:05 AM »
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Incorrect.  The earth rises to meet the apple.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

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