The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Regicide on August 25, 2021, 11:30:21 PM
-
This question isn’t specifically about the Flat Earth or Round Earth debate, but ties into a common argument, namely the existence of gravity. Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity. The most common alternate explanation involves a universal accelerator. However, while gravity is difficult to demonstrate due to its comparative weakness, I can give several examples of invisible forces that are observable on a small scale and lack truly complete explanations in both theories. I’m talking about magnetism and static charge. Gravity, as I said before is a comparatively weak force. This can be seen through the action of a fridge magnet- this tiny chunk of ferrous material has enough power to overcome the full gravitational force of the earth. We’re all taught how magnets supposedly work, of course- there’s a magnetic field, emitted from the magnet’s north pole to the south pole. Opposite poles attract each other, while like poles repel. This is known. What we don’t really know is how. It’s not like the opposite poles want to be together. They aren’t sentient. They have no agency, no means of moving together. There’s no visible interaction or subatomic interaction. They just, through an invisible and baffling force, move together. I’m sure there are explanations, but I challenge you to find one that doesn’t in some way involve invisible forces. So anyway. I await your answers.
-
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.
Do they? Do you have a source for this?
There’s no visible interaction or subatomic interaction.
Incorrect. The Standard Model, accepted by most physicists for decades, explains the electromagnetic force as being carried by virtual photons. You are correct that these are invisible, but they are certainly subatomic.
-
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.
Do they? Do you have a source for this?
Isn't your Wiki the source for that? If you look up gravity in your Wiki the first page you get is the UA one
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Which starts:
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.
This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center. According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground.
There is a nod to an alternative:
However, not all Flat Earth models dismiss the theory of gravity. The Davis Model proposes that the earth is an infinite plane exerting a finite gravitational pull (g), which is consistent with Gauss's Law.
But UA is clearly presented as the prevailing one.
-
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.
Do they? Do you have a source for this?
You didn't ask me, but;
YouTube is a beanfeast of Flat-Earthers who deny the existence of gravity. I can show you them if you really want me to.
For "many FEers" in the above quote, you could read "many FEers outwith this small subset at TFES"
-
Isn't your Wiki the source for that? If you look up gravity in your Wiki the first page you get is the UA one
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
This page says nothing about an invisible force. I wasn't contesting the rejection of conventional wisdom regarding gravity, but the reason for its rejection.
For "many FEers" in the above quote, you could read "many FEers outwith this small subset at TFES"
We can't answer for FEers elsewhere. That only makes this thread even less relevant in the FET board than it already is.
-
YouTube is a beanfeast of Flat-Earthers who deny the existence of gravity.
How did you establish that they're FE'ers? Do you just take the word of anyone with a YouTube channel for granted?
For "many FEers" in the above quote, you could read "many FEers outwith this small subset at TFES"
Ah, yes, if you set aside the tiny subset of the majority of FE'ers worldwide, many of them hold a different view! Christ almighty, and you lot wonder why the world is having issues with critical thinking.
Here's a suggestion: if you want to ask those people about their alleged views, and debate their beliefs, perhaps you should consider asking them, not us? I'm not too fussed about you wasting your time on this, but you're also wasting ours, and that's not great.
-
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.
Sort of. The foundation, arguably, of the modern flat earth movement was introduced along with a general approach for studying the world - dubbed zeteticism.
Zeteticism is very similar to the traditional scientific approach but highlights a fundamental difference. In zeteticism, you strictly study what is, and endeavor to let that organically lead you to an understanding of how/why. You try and let nature suggest the hypotheses by carefully watching/studying it.
Gravitation is perhaps the quintessential example of something that was theorized to exist without evidence for it. Rather than allow the study of the natural world to lead US to answers, an answer was mathematically contrived and then forced upon reality.
Newton understood what he was doing at the time (invoking unscientific, philosophically unsound "magic" to solve a math problem), but subsequent students weren't taught well about it. This is one of the reasons that he didn't even bother to feign a hypothesis for what gravitation is or how it works. No gravitation has ever been discovered/measured - it is not known to exist except in a theoretical/mathematical context.
Many things are real AND invisible to us. It is not the invisibility that is the issue, it is the lack of reality!
The most common alternate explanation involves a universal accelerator.
That may be the most common here, but not outside of tfes.
We’re all taught how magnets supposedly work, of course
I would argue that none of us are. We learn some of the things they do, and some ideas for how they may possibly work.
What we don’t really know is how.
That's why they don't (and can't) teach us that! It is a similar situation with gravitation - we can spend a long time learning about the effects, but none on the cause.
I’m sure there are explanations, but I challenge you to find one that doesn’t in some way involve invisible forces. So anyway. I await your answers.
Most speculative/theoretical explanations for magnetism and gravitation involve theoretical particles/waves/entities. Xasop mentioned one with "virtual photons". Personally, I am a monopolist. In any case, though magnetism is clearly not understood - it is orders of magnitude more understood (and most importantly, USEFUL!) and demonstrably real than gravitation. Gravitation has no demonstrable reality beyond equation whatsoever, magnetism and static have boatloads of it!
-
How did you establish that they're FE'ers? Do you just take the word of anyone with a YouTube channel for granted?
If they claim to be Flat-Earthers, have a channel or a number of video titles with the words "Flat Earth" in them, and regular argue that the Earth is Flat, then what else should I take them to be? Dog-groomers? Telephone hygienists?
They openly state what they want to be known as, and regularly argue as such, so why would I take them for anything else?
Here's a suggestion: if you want to ask those people about their alleged views, and debate their beliefs, perhaps you should consider asking them, not us? I'm not too fussed about you wasting your time on this, but you're also wasting ours, and that's not great.
I'm not asking you anything about them. I didn't ask you or anyone else anything about them above.
I'm already active over there. I don't need to be told whether or not I should, or want, to engage with them.
Regicide said "Many Flat Earthers", xasop asked for the source for this, and I suggested that it could be read as I stated above, that the "many" includes numbers outwith your group here.
I didn't ask you or anyone else anything about it.
I realise full well you folks want to be seen as a breed apart from the "run-of-the-mill flat-earthers" that inhabit YouTube and other places, but you might just have to accept that in the eyes of the general populace, you're all one generic group ....
-
Regicide, you raise a good point about seemingly "invisible" forces being credited for this and that without any evidence of any of it.
However like Xasop said, magnetism is a force that can be observed on a sub-atomic level as being the result of atoms being attracted to one another if their charges are opposite (meaning one has electrons to share and another electrons to store)...
I personally believe Gravity is all Magnetism. The Earth emits a negative magnetic charge and attracts objects to its surface. Gravity measurements increase around volcanoes... is this because theres more mass or more magnetic material?
-
Gravitation is perhaps the quintessential example of something that was theorized to exist without evidence for it. Rather than allow the study of the natural world to lead US to answers, an answer was mathematically contrived and then forced upon reality.
You have the sequence of events backwards. Einstein didn’t start with a theory of gravitation and work backwards. Special relativity contradicted Newton’s “instant action at a distance”. He developed GR as a way of reconciling that problem. It was exactly the study of the natural world that led to GR. And since then, all kinds of experimental evidence supports it.
-
However like Xasop said, magnetism is a force that can be observed on a sub-atomic level as being the result of atoms being attracted to one another if their charges are opposite (meaning one has electrons to share and another electrons to store)...
That is not what I said, nor is it correct. You seem to be confusing at least three different things. Electrons are electrically charged, not magnetically charged, and an atom has zero net electric charge by definition.
-
You have the sequence of events backwards. Einstein didn’t start with a theory of gravitation and work backwards.
You seem to be a little confused. Newton came long before einstein, and is the one generally credited for inventing gravitation.
Special relativity contradicted Newton’s “instant action at a distance”. He developed GR as a way of reconciling that problem. It was exactly the study of the natural world that led to GR.
I don't see it this way. Einstein came up with relativity, in part, specifically to try and make gravitation an actual part of physics (for the first time)
And since then, all kinds of experimental evidence supports it.
You are conflating things. We are talking about gravitation, not relativity.
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).
-
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).
People seem to do gravitation experiments all of the time. Here's a recent one where it looks like they developed a Cavendish-like set-up using ever smaller source masses:
Measurement of Gravitational Coupling between Millimeter-Sized Masses
"Here we show gravitational coupling between two gold spheres of 1 mm radius, thereby entering the regime of sub-100 mg sources of gravity. Periodic modulation of the source mass position allows us to perform a spatial mapping of the gravitational force. Both linear and quadratic coupling are observed as a consequence of the nonlinearity of the gravitational potential. Our results extend the parameter space of gravity measurements to small single source masses and small gravitational field strengths."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.09546.pdf
-
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).
People seem to do gravitation experiments all of the time. Here's a recent one where it looks like they developed a Cavendish-like set-up using ever smaller source masses:
Measurement of Gravitational Coupling between Millimeter-Sized Masses
"Here we show gravitational coupling between two gold spheres of 1 mm radius, thereby entering the regime of sub-100 mg sources of gravity. Periodic modulation of the source mass position allows us to perform a spatial mapping of the gravitational force. Both linear and quadratic coupling are observed as a consequence of the nonlinearity of the gravitational potential. Our results extend the parameter space of gravity measurements to small single source masses and small gravitational field strengths."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.09546.pdf
Too bad it keeps changing, invalidating the premise - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment
-
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).
People seem to do gravitation experiments all of the time. Here's a recent one where it looks like they developed a Cavendish-like set-up using ever smaller source masses:
Measurement of Gravitational Coupling between Millimeter-Sized Masses
"Here we show gravitational coupling between two gold spheres of 1 mm radius, thereby entering the regime of sub-100 mg sources of gravity. Periodic modulation of the source mass position allows us to perform a spatial mapping of the gravitational force. Both linear and quadratic coupling are observed as a consequence of the nonlinearity of the gravitational potential. Our results extend the parameter space of gravity measurements to small single source masses and small gravitational field strengths."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.09546.pdf
\
Too bad it keeps changing, invalidating the premise - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment
How has it "changed" in the study referenced?
-
However like Xasop said, magnetism is a force that can be observed on a sub-atomic level as being the result of atoms being attracted to one another if their charges are opposite (meaning one has electrons to share and another electrons to store)...
That is not what I said, nor is it correct. You seem to be confusing at least three different things. Electrons are electrically charged, not magnetically charged, and an atom has zero net electric charge by definition.
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the Standard model and how it deviates from my comment above, nor of your objections to mine... I'll look into it more..
-
You seem to be a little confused. Newton came long before einstein, and is the one generally credited for inventing gravitation.
What I meant was that Einstein didn’t set out to explain Newton’s theory or come up with some new theory. His goal was to make what was already observed about gravity consistent with relativity.
I don't see it this way. Einstein came up with relativity, in part, specifically to try and make gravitation an actual part of physics (for the first time)
How you see it is irrelevant. The historical record says otherwise. There is all kinds of source material out there. You might try reading some of it.
Newton’s gravity was already an established part of physics. GR was Einstein’s effort to merge the theory of relativity with what was already understood about gravity...that inertial and gravitational mass were equal and that all objects fall with the same acceleration. The problem, as I mentioned before, was that instantaneous action at a distance of Newton gravity conflicted with relativity. Remember that one of the postulates of SR is that all of the laws of physics take the same form in inertial frames. He had already shown how thermodynamics, electrodynamics and the mechanical motion of bodies could be incorporated into relativity. GR was his effort to incorporate gravity.
You are conflating things. We are talking about gravitation, not relativity.
You can’t separate the two. The way that Einstein incorporated gravity into relativity was to generalize special relativity, aka “general relativity”.
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).
There is a rigorous definition of what gravitation is. It is the movement of bodies consistent with spacetime curvature. Spacetime curvature has been measured, predicted and observed to be consistent with the field equations dozens of times.
-
Lord, give me patience.
If they claim to be Flat-Earthers, have a channel or a number of video titles with the words "Flat Earth" in them, and regular argue that the Earth is Flat, then what else should I take them to be?
You seem to have this problem rather regularly. Someone says something on the Internet, you like what's been said, so you present it as verified information. You do it in politics, and you do it in RE vs FE.
The fact that someone claims to represent a certain group is hardly relevant if they actively and overtly try to undermine that group. You're not actually stupid, so you know this. You've seen it many times during political discussions - an obvious example would be "concerned Labour voters" who patiently explain why they're voting Tory on TV.
Dog-groomers? Telephone hygienists?
Both of these options are more sensible than your current approach. A low bar, for sure, but you are improving. Let's go with "telephone hygienists" whilst you work on more accurate descriptors.
They openly state what they want to be known as, and regularly argue as such, so why would I take them for anything else?
Well, there are only two possible reasons why you would take them at face value:
- You might be stupid. But, again, we know you aren't.
- You might be intentionally deceptive.
So, by negation, we can see why you'd take them for something else: we know you're not stupid, so the only question is whether you choose to be deceptive. If you do, it's a double-edged sword. If you take every idiot on YouTube that said "erth flat" at some point and uphold them as "many Flat Earthers" or "most Flat Earthers" when describing general FE beliefs, then you need to be prepared for the argument to swing both ways. For example:
- Many Round Earthers believe that a constantly accelerating body will eventually exceed the speed of light. We know this isn't the case. The Earth is therefore not round.
- Many Round Earthers struggle to understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. How could we possibly take Round Earth seriously when many Round Earthers are quite so delusional?!
- Many Round Earthers do not understand the difference between arguments which are backed with evidence and arguments which make them feel good. We totally, definitely, should not trust Round Earthers.
This is why your post is the pile of trash I decried it as. You took someone's misunderstanding of FET, and, rather than help them correct it, you chose to double down by pointing out that some unverified idiots somewhere said stupid things. It doesn't help the discussion, and it sure as hell doesn't help your side of the discussion. As is usually the case with you: if you have nothing useful to say, you should seriously consider the possibility of just saying nothing.
I'm not asking you anything about them. I didn't ask you or anyone else anything about them above.
Yeah, yeah, you're pretending you don't know how to parse English. "Oh noooooo I am Tumeni and what is an indefinite you? I am just soooooo lost." Get in the sea.
I'm already active over there. I don't need to be told whether or not I should, or want, to engage with them.
Congratulations. I'm sure you're doing as good a job at defending RET there as you are here.
the "run-of-the-mill flat-earthers" that inhabit YouTube and other places
You're doing it again. You're taking a handful of idiots you've found on the Internet and attempting to rebrand them as the default. I won't tolerate that - if you want to argue here, do so in good faith. If you can't bring yourself to that extremely basic baseline standard, take your hot takes to AR where they belong.
but you might just have to accept that in the eyes of the general populace, you're all one generic group ....
I don't have to accept that at all, for numerous reasons. Firstly, when you say "general populace", what you really mean is "people who reach similar conclusions to you". In neutral terms: people you find convenient to bring up right now. In less neutral terms: stupid and/or deceptive people. This is a problem you keep having - you gravitate towards arguments and people that make you warm and fuzzy inside, and you present them as if they were prominent or relevant.
Secondly, the idea that social groups have to "just accept" that people will unfairly compartmentalise people into boxes is moronic. I really shouldn't need to explain things this obvious. You're an adult, for Christ's sake.
Do Muslims have to accept that, in the eyes of the "general populace", they're all part of the same group, and therefore they just have to accept that they'll be identified as terrorists? Do Catholics just have to accept that they share a title with many prominent paedophiles? Do Labour voters just have to accept that many Labour members are anti-Semites?
No, of fucking course we don't have to accept that, and you can shove this kind of sophomoric rhetoric up your arse. Your logic is bad, and you should feel bad.
-
What I meant was that Einstein didn’t set out to explain Newton’s theory or come up with some new theory.
One of the primary motives for creating relativity was to FINALLY explain/describe gravitation (for the first time in history). Of course, due to the ongoing scourge of aether-mcarthyism the effort was a failure - but it was a major driving factor in the creation of relativity. Newton defined the mechanism of gravitation as (the judeo-christian) god's will - this unscientific blunder (regretted by most all competent physicists for centuries by the time of einstein) had left physics in a sorry broken state ever since and was one of the things that relativity was created to fix!
How you see it is irrelevant.
Perhaps. And perhaps how you learned it was! History is an extremely subjective field, and requires reading multiple sources and between the lines to understand.
The historical record says otherwise.
Which one?
You might try reading some of it.
Good advice!
The problem, as I mentioned before, was that instantaneous action at a distance of Newton gravity conflicted with relativity.
Almost. The problem, known for centuries by competent physicists since newton, is that instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" conflicted with REALITY and was anathema to physics writ-large. It was (and still is) a MAJOR problem in physics that relativity aimed (and failed) to address.
You can’t separate the two.
On the one hand, that is exactly my point - relativity attempts to make gravitation a real/describable mechanism in physics (not chocked up to god's divine intervention, as newton concluded) for the first time in history.
On the other hand, gravitation was invoked by newton in the 1700's. Gravitation is separate and distinct from relativity - it is generally attributed to newton. Our discussion is about gravitation, an unscientific/religious concept that einstein attempted to fix with relativity.
There is a rigorous definition of what gravitation is.
Nope! Never has been, and most likely never will be. There is a MAJOR difference between describing what something does/causes and describing what it is (and how it does/causes it)!
It is the movement of bodies consistent with spacetime curvature.
This is both meaningless goblety-gook and a mere description of gravity (the real phenomena we observe, and natural law millennia old). Gravity is what gravitation DOES. What gravitation is, and how it functions is undefined now as it was when newton first invoked it.
Spacetime curvature has been measured
Don't be silly! Space time can't even be defined, let alone measured. Spacetime is a concept, not an actual thing in material reality that has any demonstrability/tangibility whatsoever.
predicted and observed to be consistent with the field equations dozens of times.
Again, you are conflating. Relativity isn't at the heart of this discussion, gravitation is.
-
Perhaps. And perhaps how you learned it was! History is an extremely subjective field, and requires reading multiple sources and between the lines to understand
Luckily, we have a comprehensive record of nearly everything Einstein ever wrote or published including his own autobiography, so we don’t have to rely on third party subjectivity.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B081J1DV8J/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/
Maybe you can show me where in any of the things he wrote he says anything like what you claim.
Almost. The problem, known for centuries by competent physicists since newton, is that instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" conflicted with REALITY and was anathema to physics writ-large. It was (and still is) a MAJOR problem in physics that relativity aimed (and failed) to address.
How can something that appears to happen in nature conflict with nature? And it wasn’t the “action at a distance” that conflicted with relativity. It was the instantaneous action at a distance of Newton’s gravity. SR showed that nothing can propagate through space faster than the speed of light, including gravity. Newton assumed gravity acted instantaneously, so relativity was incompatible with that. Relativity solved that by showing that gravity doesn't act instantaneously.
There is a MAJOR difference between describing what something does/causes and describing what it is (and how it does/causes it)!
That’s true. The challenge is coming up with a theory of cause is that it is consistent with the effects we perceive. The effects of gravity that we see are that inertial and gravitational mass are the same and that neglecting air resistance, all bodies fall with the same acceleration. Taking relativity into account and that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, the spacetime curvature theory meets all the criteria for explaining how bodies (and light) move. That’s the mark of a viable theory, if it explains observed phenomenon as well as make accurate predictions for what we may not have yet observed. GR hits all the marks on that, at least so far.
If GR works the way we think it does, then there should be a measurable differences in how light and bodies move through space and those differences should be consistent with the field equations. So far so far good on that point. GR predicts motion of bodies and light perfectly, at least so far.
Also, if GR works the way we think it does., we should be able to measure the physical differences in the space itself, that determine how light and bodies move GR is a geometric interpretation of gravity, so we should be able to find evidence of geometric differences or changes in spacetime that are consistent with what we would expect according tot he field equations. Again, we have been able to measure those geometric differences and they are consistent with the field equations.
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/12/27/measuring-the-curvature-of-spacetime-with-the-geodetic-effect/
Here’s a cool animation of the same thing.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/Media/Rel_gyro_expt-anima-flash.html
Spacetime curvature can also be measured by testing how the gravitational field changes as over distance. Kind of the same way you can determine the shape of any physical object by measuring it at different points. If all sides are equal and perpendicular you know you are dealing with a square. If the gravitation field is weaker at higher elevations and stronger at lower, you know that the shape of the field is curved downwards. The difference in the measurements can tell you how much it curves.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/16/ask-ethan-how-can-we-measure-the-curvature-of-gravity/?sh=54095661134f
-
well this was an interesting post. it shed some light on the understanding Einstein and others had as they developed Relativity.
-
Maybe you can show me where in any of the things he wrote he says anything like what you claim.
Perhaps I can! However, do you know who coined the phrase - "genius is knowing how to hide your sources"?
How can something that appears to happen in nature conflict with nature?
I agree, this is a somewhat nonsensical question. There's nothing you can say that can't be said : there's nothing that can happen in nature that conflicts with nature.
Something can appear to happen that is in conflict with nature (the limited slice of it we know) when it only APPEARS to or our understanding of nature is wrong/incomplete.
And it wasn’t the “action at a distance” that conflicted with relativity. It was the instantaneous action at a distance of Newton’s gravity.
Both are a major problem for gravitation. As I said, this is something that most all physicists since newton understood. By einsteins time it was a famous problem in physics, almost centuries old by that point.
SR showed that nothing can propagate through space faster than the speed of light, including gravity.
This would be ONE major problem for instantaneous action at a distance, yes. The major one we are discussing, however, is the acute lack of mechanism/description/definition of WHAT gravitation is and how it accomplishes its many miracles.
Newton assumed gravity acted instantaneously, so relativity was incompatible with that. Relativity solved that by showing that gravity doesn't act instantaneously.
If by "solved" you mean "ignored" and "showing", you mean "assuming" - then yes, that's correct.
That’s true. The challenge is coming up with a theory of cause is that it is consistent with the effects we perceive.
Gravitation IS the theory of cause. It's just piss poor.
Relativity is an aether theory (though I doubt you were taught this). It mathematically presumes a physical substrate to "empty" reality which contorts with the presence of mass. The contorting of this aether is the presumed cause of gravity in relativity. Empiricism demands that we provide observational and experimental support for the theoretical entity itself (aether/spacetime) as well as the mechanism responsible for matters contortion of it from a distance. Because we excised aether from the schools, and physics is so poorly taught generally, there was believed to be nothing to go looking for (in part because many that tried found nothing).
the spacetime curvature theory meets all the criteria for explaining how bodies (and light) move.
Not mathematically speaking. In any case, we are talking about gravitation. "Spacetime curvature" is just more meaningless gooblety-gook. Nothing is proposed (or known) to do the warping, nothing is proposed for how it does so at an infinite distance, nothing (mostly) is proposed to be within the two gravitating bodies. In newtonian theory, something (matter) acts upon nothing (space) to affect the motion of incredibly distant matter (something). Reduced/generalized this is : Something acts upon nothing which acts upon something. This is fundamentally unacceptable in physics and also what relativity sought to change with its mathematical description of gravitation.
GR predicts motion of bodies and light perfectly, at least so far.
Also not true, but even if it were - this is a discussion about gravitation NOT relativity.
Again, we have been able to measure those geometric differences and they are consistent with the field equations.
You can't measure something that doesn't exist (or isn't even defined well enough to know how/where to look anyway).
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/12/27/measuring-the-curvature-of-spacetime-with-the-geodetic-effect/
I will check this out. I don't think I've encountered "the geodetic effect" before.
Spacetime curvature can also be measured by testing how the gravitational field changes as over distance.
So you believe, and you MUST believe - otherwise you can't continue to measure weight and BELIEVE that an invisible undefined "magic" of gravitation is behind the scenes causing it.
The difference in the measurements can tell you how much it curves.
And ASSUME how much it curves, IF it were real, curvable, and being curved by "SOMETHING". Do you see why this is something very different from empirical science?
-
Going back to the original post: the cause of gravity may not be entirely understood yet, but that does not mean gravity does not exist.
As an analogy, the cause of universal acceleration is not known either. So why are we discussing whether or not the cause of gravity is known?
Bottom line is that the RE model for gravity better matches with what is observed than the FE model.
The FE model is incompatible with gravitational differences. So they are ignored or dismissed. Board members of this wiki take a very clear position towards gravity: it does not exist in their view and UA is the elementary replacement.
Additional problem for UA: the Sun can consist of a gas or a liquid because UA would flatten it completely - unless the Sun would be surrounded by a transparent solid shell.
-
The major one we are discussing, however, is the acute lack of mechanism/description/definition of WHAT gravitation is and how it accomplishes its many miracles.
Just repeating that there is no mechanism or description of what gravitation s and how it works doesn’t make it true. GR describes both the mechanism and how it works.
If by "solved" you mean "ignored" and "showing", you mean "assuming" - then yes, that's correct.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Newton assumed that gravity acted instantaneously. GR shows that gravity doesn’t, nor does it have to. I Nobody is ignoring anything.
Relativity is an aether theory (though I doubt you were taught this). It mathematically presumes a physical substrate to "empty" reality which contorts with the presence of mass. The contorting of this aether is the presumed cause of gravity in relativity. Empiricism demands that we provide observational and experimental support for the theoretical entity itself (aether/spacetime) as well as the mechanism responsible for matters contortion of it from a distance. Because we excised aether from the schools, and physics is so poorly taught generally, there was believed to be nothing to go looking for (in part because many that tried found nothing)
This is where you ignorance shines the brightest. There is no shame in ignorance, it can easily be cured by a little education.
Einstein didn’t assume a physical substrate at all. In fact, he started out trying to prove the exact opposite. He was an admirer of Mach and like him opposed to the idea of absolute space, to which all motion is relative. If there was any philosophy guiding Einstein’s science it was that space wasn’t a “substrate” or a physical reality.
In 1918, Einstein defined three fundamental principles of GR
"(a) Principle of relativity. The laws of nature are only assertions of timespace coincidences; therefore they find their unique, natural expression in generally covariant equations.
(b) Principle of equivalence. Inertia and weight are identical in essence. From this and from the results of the special theory of relativity, it follows necessarily that the symmetric ‘fundamental tensor’ (gμν) determines the metric properties of space, the inertial relations of bodies in it, as well as gravitational effects. We will call the condition of space, described by the fundamental tensor, the ‘G-field.’
(c) Mach’s principle. The G-field is determined without residue by the masses of bodies. Since mass and energy are equivalent according to the results of the special theory of relativity and since energy is described formally by the symmetric energy tensor (Tμν), this means that the G-field is conditioned and determined by the energy tensor.
That last sentence means that the gravitational field is determined by what is in it. All motion within the g field is relative to other matter within the field, not the field itself.
Ultimately, he was unable to incorporate Mach’s principle into GR and later disavowed Mach. The tl:dr is that over the course of 10 years, Albert realized that even if the universe was completely void of any matter, the g field would still exist.
This is a really good account of that process if you are interested. Like I said there is no shame in ignorance. But there is shame (or should be) in spouting off things “you know” without any knowledge or education on the matter.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4377/1/LoveMinusZero.pdf
The first couple of chapters of Brian Greene’s “Fabric of the Cosmos” is also a good account. I think you can download a pdf of that for free. And it’s easier to read. Anyway, we seemed to have strayed from the OP’s original intent, so if you want to start another thread, I’m happy to discuss further.
-
Bottom line is that the RE model for gravity better matches with what is observed than the FE model.
The FE model is incompatible with gravitational differences. So they are ignored or dismissed.
This is incorrect. It would appear that you have either ignored or dismissed the parts of the model which account for variations in gravity. You'd do well to familiarise yourself with the position you're so proudly disagreeing with.
Board members of this wiki take a very clear position towards gravity
Apparently not clear enough, considering how massively you've cocked up your reading of it.
Additional problem for UA: the Sun can consist of a gas or a liquid because UA would flatten it completely - unless the Sun would be surrounded by a transparent solid shell.
Considering your extremely poor understanding of UA, I'm not expecting much reasoning from you, but you should present whatever you have instead of just stating your conclusion.
-
Going back to the original post: the cause of gravity may not be entirely understood yet, but that does not mean gravity does not exist.
Absolutely! Most everything is not entirely understood, but it exists just the same!
The OP is really about comparing it to magnetism. The cause of magnetism is also not understood - yet demonstrably exists.
As an analogy, the cause of universal acceleration is not known either.
True. I presume it is the same cause as in the presumptive model. Whatever powers matter to bend spacetime perpetually is presumably responsible for powering UA.
So why are we discussing whether or not the cause of gravity is known?
Because it has relevance to the OP. We are comparing gravitation and magnetism.
Bottom line is that the RE model for gravity better matches with what is observed than the FE model.
What FE model?
The FE model is incompatible with gravitational differences
This is a common misconception. It is frightfully easy to edit a model to match with observation it did not initially predict.
Board members of this wiki take a very clear position towards gravity: it does not exist in their view and UA is the elementary replacement.
I haven't found this to be the case. Besides, not everyone here has the same views as the wiki.
Additional problem for UA: the Sun can consist of a gas or a liquid because UA would flatten it completely - unless the Sun would be surrounded by a transparent solid shell.
Did you know that every imagined problem has an imaginary solution? It's trivial to accommodate "paradoxes" like this.
For example, what if you no longer believed the sun were gas or liquid?
-
1) The FE model is incompatible with gravitational differences. So they are ignored or dismissed.
Your reply:This is incorrect. It would appear that you have either ignored or dismissed the parts of the model which account for variations in gravity. You'd do well to familiarise yourself with the position you're so proudly disagreeing with.
See the wiki 'Variations in Gravity':
...However, the experiments either do not show variation or the few effects suggesting variations are questionable, contradicted, and may be attributed to other causes...
(this is just one example, taken from that chapter).
UA is incompatible with variations in gravity because, according to UA, the entire world (including Sun, Moon and planets) is accelerating at the same rate in the same directions. This creates a 'virtual' gravitation which is constant in the entire reference frame: same magnitude, same direction, overall
2) Board members of this wiki take a very clear position towards gravity
Your reply: Apparently not clear enough, considering how massively you've cocked up your reading of it.
No, it's clear enough, see reply n°2 (from AllAroundTeWorld) in this thread and see also your own reply n°2 in the thread "Flat Earth Gravity Explained". You wrote:
It sounds like you have, in many words, re-invented the concept of Universal Acceleration, an inseparable element of elementary FET. Please read the FAQ and skim through the Wiki before posting.
3) Additional problem for UA: the Sun can consist of a gas or a liquid because UA would flatten it completely - unless the Sun would be surrounded by a transparent solid shell.
Your reply: Considering your extremely poor understanding of UA, I'm not expecting much reasoning from you, but you should present whatever you have instead of just stating your conclusion.
Typo: I meant "the Sun can not consist of a gas...", but I think that was clear enough for anyone reading the post.
When a gas or liquid is subject to a unidirectional force, than this gas or liquid will be levelled out perpendicular to that force. That's what happens with water on the flat earth. So the Sun would be levelled out too, unless it is contained in a rigid shell. Similarly, the Moon and planets must always have been rigid, from the very starting point of their creation. They can never have had a liquid stage throughout their formation.
You are challenging me to reply in the same aggressive way as you are addressing me, but don't hope for that, I will never do that. I prefer to remain polite. Being rude is seen by most readers as a sign of weakness or incompetence. A frustration out of lack of reasonable arguments. I will never lower myself to that level.
-
So why are we discussing whether or not the cause of gravity is known?
Because it has relevance to the OP. We are comparing gravitation and magnetism.
I don't think so. We could ask Regicide to confirm, but it seems to me he tried to make this point:
- gravity is rejected by FE because of its 'invisible' force, yet magnetism is not rejected by FE despite that there's an invisible (and partially inexplainable) force for magnetism too.
Bottom line is that the RE model for gravity better matches with what is observed than the FE model.
What FE model?
The FE model as explained on this wiki.
Additional problem for UA: the Sun can not consist of a gas or a liquid because UA would flatten it completely - unless the Sun would be surrounded by a transparent solid shell.
(Quote edited, see word 'not' in bold)
Did you know that every imagined problem has an imaginary solution? It's trivial to accommodate "paradoxes" like this.
For example, what if you no longer believed the sun were gas or liquid?
Indeed. If there is a UA then the Sun either needs to be a solid or - as I wrote - a gas or liquid which is kept inside a transparent shell, otherwise it would be flattened. You could argue that both are possible, but both are very unlikely.
-
<An absolute mess of misused quote tags and attempts at "no u" responses>
I don't quite think you understand; we might be hitting a language barrier here, so let me try mimicking your blunt tone, which you somehow managed to mistake for politeness. Perhaps you'll find that more accessible.
You will not be able to have this discussion until you've familiarised yourself with the position you'd already decided to dispute. It doesn't matter that you feel very confident and that you can present your uniformed opinions as if they were fact. Until you understand what you're arguing against, your points will land so far from the mark that they won't merit much consideration. For the same reason, they will not be on topic in any thread in the upper.
The moment you revealed yourself to believe that UA would somehow "squash" the Sun was when you revealed yourself to be woefully uninformed. You need to fix this, not protest it.
In your further attempt at argumentation, you decided that UA is a unidirectional force. Considering the fact that this mistake was already corrected in this very thread (and prior to you posting!), I can only assume that you lack argumentation, or that you failed to read and understand the discussion that's being had here. Why else would you say something you already know is completely wrong?
You also argued that this is analogous to water on the Earth's surface. You know, one of those things which aren't directly subjected to UA. This is where your appalling understanding really shines through. "If UA affects the Sun, then it should act like water on the Earth" as an argument boils down to "something affected by UA should be indistinguishable from something expressly unaffected by it". Or, in terms of propositional logic: true is false. Poor effort!
Finally, your core argument is that you found a sentence which reads "However, the experiments either do not show variation or the few effects suggesting variations are questionable, contradicted, and may be attributed to other causes" and that you decided to interpret it as meaning that the effect is not observed at all, or even that it cannot be observed. As I originally suspected, your failure is one of reading comprehension. You're gonna have to fix that, my friend - no one here is going to waste too much time doing your homework for you.
-
You also argued that this is analogous to water on the Earth's surface. You know, one of those things which aren't directly subjected to UA. This is where your appalling understanding really shines through. "If UA affects the Sun, then it should act like water on the Earth" as an argument boils down to "something affected by UA should be indistinguishable from something expressly unaffected by it". Or, in terms of propositional logic: true is false.
Water is not directly subjected to UA, but it is subjected indirectly by Earth pushing it upwards. This is why it is "flat". If the Earth consisted only of water then the ocean would still be flat because of UA (assuming that UA could affect water in this scenario).
So if UA applies to the Sun then it should also be flat unless it is a solid object or a liquid/gas in a container as hvanmunster suggested.
In any case this is a debate so I do not understand why one needs to be replying in an aggressive manner.
-
Water is not directly subjected to UA, but it is subjected indirectly by Earth pushing it upwards. This is why it is "flat".
This is correct.
If the Earth consisted only of water then the ocean would still be flat because of UA
This, emphatically, is not. Over time, it would form a sphere.
(assuming that UA could affect water in this scenario)
That's not actually what you're assuming, though I can see why you would be confused. Let's try and outline the actual assumption required for your conclusion to hold and see if you can work things out from there.
For UA to "flatten" your hypothetical globe of water, it would have to not apply uniformly to all water particles. In other words, you're imagining a hypothetical force pushing just on the bottom of the sphere, thus causing it to spread out. Or, in other words, it would have to not apply to the vast majority of the water involved.
At its core, your confusion stems from the fact that you're treating UA as if it was a singular unidirectional force - something we corrected everyone on very early on in this thread.
In any case this is a debate so I do not understand why one needs to be replying in an aggressive manner.
It is entirely up to you to decide what you do and don't find aggressive. I cannot force you to interpret my writing in the way it was intended, and it's equally possible that your and hvan's intent is not making its way across. To me, the presumptuous and pompous approach of "Your theory says X! What's that? You're telling me it doesn't? Well, it clearly does, because I said so! You therefore clearly believe X and X is wrong!" is worse than being aggressive - it's intellectually dishonest and lazy. Both you and hvan need to learn what you're arguing against, preferably before you decide that you'll die on the hill of opposing it. I can help you with that, but only once you've stopped strawmanning us and started engaging in meaningful discussion.
This is significantly worsened by hvan's proud announcement of how polite he thinks he is, while simultaneously showing himself to be completely unaware of the cultural norms here. As a guest here, he'll have to adjust one way or another. Until then, he won't find much patience out of those of us who deal with dozens of similar people every day. Again, you may choose to interpret that as rude, but it's just the economy of scale at play. If you don't wanna be treated like yet another generic noob who failed to do his homework, stop being one.
-
So just to check if I understood what you wrote, if the Earth was originally a globe then under UA it would remain one as all the atoms would be pushed upwards by UA with an equal force. And if it started as a flat plane then it would continue to be one for the same reason. Is this correct?
I cannot answer about havn, but I can assure you that I am simply trying to understand what it proposed by FE.
I am not an expert on it and cannot remember all the details in the wiki and more importantly I do not understand all that is proposed in there. It is very likely that on occasion I will ask something that is already covered in the wiki/forums, but please consider this as an unintentional mistake.
-
So just to check if I understood what you wrote, if the Earth was originally a globe then under UA it would remain one as all the atoms would be pushed upwards by UA with an equal force. And if it started as a flat plane then it would continue to be one for the same reason. Is this correct?
Not necessarily. The current understanding of the UA phenomenon is that it affects all mass, but the Earth (and possibly other bodies) exhibit some sort of shielding effect (which, for example, prevents objects on the Earth's surface from being equally accelerated, thus creating the effect of gravity). This is likely somehow linked to the celestial bodies' mass or density, but we have very few means of exploring that whilst earthbound, so take that last bit as nothing more than wild speculation.
I am not an expert on it and cannot remember all the details in the wiki and more importantly I do not understand all that is proposed in there. It is very likely that on occasion I will ask something that is already covered in the wiki/forums, but please consider this as an unintentional mistake.
Noted and appreciated. I think I can speak for everyone here when I say that it's OK to ask questions, and it's also OK to make mistakes - both of these things are part of the process! It only really grinds my gears when people insist that they understand FE better than the FE'ers themselves.
-
Just repeating that there is no mechanism or description of what gravitation s and how it works doesn’t make it true.
Of course not! I repeat it only in the hopes that you will understand me. Perhaps we should try this in reverse - what is the mechanism or description of what gravitation is (not gravity, or "warped spacetime") and how it works (NOT what it is believed to do!)? First outline the theory (which does not rigorously exist to describe) and then outline the empirical/scientific support for the reality of gravitation.
Newton assumed that gravity acted instantaneously.
I would argue he concluded it from observation, but sure.
GR shows that gravity doesn’t, nor does it have to.
GR ASSUMES that gravity doesn't nor does it have to.
This is where you ignorance shines the brightest.
I assure you the feeling is mutual, however people rarely learn anything when being explained that.
There is no shame in ignorance
There doesn't have to be, anyhow. There often is.
it can easily be cured by a little education.
If only it were so so simple! I've been educating you this whole time while you have tried to do the same... Ignorance is a pernicious foe, and education takes time and earnest commitment!
Einstein didn’t assume a physical substrate at all.
Wrong. I recognize we were taught this, but it is false. Mathematically, philosophically, and literally - relativity is an aether theory. You can hear it from the horses mouth if you wish. I think this will take a little more discussion to fully convey - you don't seem to be following.
If there was any philosophy guiding Einstein’s science it was that space wasn’t a “substrate” or a physical reality.
Physics is a branch of philosophy. There was lots of religious and philosophical ideology influencing einstein. There is no trouble with a relative aether (one of the ideas/concepts floating around at the time). A substrate is required if you are going to contort it in order to affect action at a distance by it as an intermediary. We are discussing philosophy, if you hadn't noticed yet.
That last sentence means that the gravitational field is determined by what is in it. All motion within the g field is relative to other matter within the field, not the field itself.
There is no gravitational field. Except in equation/theory. In physics, it is anathema to have something act upon nothing. Mass cannot contort spacetime thereby affecting distant matter unless spacetime is real/physical.
Albert realized that even if the universe was completely void of any matter, the g field would still exist.
In imagination, all things are possible!
Like I said there is no shame in ignorance.
We agree there doesn't have to be, but there often is. I would say there is no shame in being wrong (there is deep shame in refusing to recognize/admit you are)
But there is shame (or should be) in spouting off things “you know” without any knowledge or education on the matter.
Agreed. Just as there is shame presuming someone is wrong/knowledgeless/educationless merely because their perspective differs from your own.
Anyway, we seemed to have strayed from the OP’s original intent, so if you want to start another thread, I’m happy to discuss further.
I wonder about that. Only the op can confirm, but I think we are right on topic (more or less). I'm also most happy to continue to discuss!
-
- gravity is rejected by FE because of its 'invisible' force, yet magnetism is not rejected by FE despite that there's an invisible (and partially inexplainable) force for magnetism too.
Looks like we're all on the same page then. As I said, the op was about comparing gravity to magnetism/static and exploring why one was frequently denied to exist while the other two are accepted - when they're all "invisible".
The FE model as explained on this wiki.
The wiki is not a bible, nor an encyclopedia. There is no accepted/agreed upon model, and the wiki outlines multiple models (that are not necessarily compatible).
Indeed. If there is a UA then the Sun either needs to be a solid or - as I wrote - a gas or liquid which is kept inside a transparent shell, otherwise it would be flattened. You could argue that both are possible, but both are very unlikely.
Through imagination, all things are possible. We can always imagine how it might work - how we could potentially reconcile any paradox. As you said, we could even argue that "both are possible" without difficulty. The sense I've gotten is that UA is most often conceptualized to push on either only the world, or the world and the visible heavens at the same time.