### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - fisherman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 14, 2021, 05:09:56 PM »
Quote
No one thinks RE will force elevators to collapse into spheres. C'mon that's just lazy and you've shit on people for trolling who have made more honest arguments than that...

That's because elevators don't have sufficient mass to collapse into spheres. The bottom line is that the EP says that an accelerating frame and an inertial frame under the influence of gravity will be equivalent with respect to all physical process and all natural laws will coincide  If an object in an inertial frame of sufficient mass will eventually collapse into a sphere, then so should an object under constant acceleration.

The EP also says that whenever there is acceleration, a gravitational field exists relative to it.  That means if the earth is accelerating, any object within the field will be subject to a gravitational force, including objects not on the surface of the earth.

As far as variations in gravity, I was simply pointing out to Tom that his own wiki cites an experiment that confirms that gravitational time dilation occurs on the surface of the earth.  Since gravitational time dilation is caused by variations in gravity, it stands to reason that there are variations of gravity on the surface of the earth.  Since the experiment is considered to be valid enough that it is cited in the wiki, I don't see how one can argue that it isn't "sufficient evidence."

As far as I know, Tom has never used the "celestial gravitation" argument, but if that is the argument he wants to use to justify the results of the NIST experiment, he should keep in mind that once you accept that GTD exists, he has conceded that gravity (regardless of its cause or source) warps spacetime.  From there, it is just a hop skip and a jump to conclude that gravitational effects are not caused by the earth accelerating upwards, but by the warping of spacetime.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 13, 2021, 09:06:43 PM »
Quote
The upward acceleration effect causes an effect of what you think is coming from gravity. It doesn't say that UA is equivalent in all functions as Newtonian Gravity or GR. That is some kind of poor logic that I can only shake my head about.

But the equivalence principle says that the upward acceleration effect is equivalent in all functions..  So you can't use the equivalence principle to justify UA unless you concede that it also would result in the earth collapsing into a sphere.

Quote
With this conception, the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field is self-evident. As long as we confine ourselves to purely mechanical processes within the range of validity of Newton's mechanics, we can be sure of the equivalence of the systems K and K'. However, for our conception to acquire deeper significance, the systems K and K' must be equivalent with respect to all physical processes, i.e. the natural laws with respect to K must coincide completely with those with respect to K'.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/394

Quote
That quote is even more specific about it - "identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth".

So you can take your 'gotcha' argument about the earth collapsing into a ball and discard it into the trash
.

See my comment above...the EP states all physical processes are the same.. But even without taking that into account, the wiki quote supports my whole argument.  As long as you limit it to effects as observed on the surface of the earth...it works from a purely observational standpoint.  But you can't extend that to an object suspended above the earth, like our jumper.  Because the EP also says

Quote
The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of co-ordinates, K and K', we call the “principle of equivalence;” this principle is evidently intimately connected with the theorem of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of relativity to co-ordinate systems which are in non-uniform motion relatively to each other. In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K'). The possibility of explaining the numerical equality of inertia and gravitation by the unity of their nature gives to the general theory of relativity, according to my conviction, such a superiority over the conceptions of classical mechanics, that all the difficulties encountered in development must be considered as small in comparison.

Since you ignored it the first time, I'll ask you again.  According to UA, is there any frame of reference from which an observer on the earth can consider our jumper to be under the influence of both gravity and inertia while still the air?  According to the EP, there should be.  If there isn't, you can't use the EP to claim that our jumper is just suspended waiting for the earth to catch up.

Quote
We talked about this before. Do you remember? Time Dilation at different heights is a prediction of the Equivalence Principle.

I agree that it is a good example of the EP.  The essential point you are missing is gravitational time dilation is caused by the unequal force of gravity

Acceleration produces a gravitational field.  The closer an object is to the source of the acceleration/gravity, the greater the gravitational effect.  Time dilation will increase (time slows) as the gravitational effect increases.

Quote
The stronger the gravity, the more spacetime curves, and the slower time itself proceeds.

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/06/24/does-time-go-faster-at-the-top-of-a-building-compared-to-the-bottom/#:~:text=Gravitational%20time%20dilation%20occurs%20because,the%20slower%20time%20itself%20proceeds.

If time is slower at the bottom of an accelerating rocket (or an accelerating earth), it is because the strength of the gravitational field is stronger.

Quote
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster

That's a direct quote from the linked article on the wiki. Using the EP, and the results of the NIST experiment, we can conclude that time runs slower at the bottom of a staircase than a few steps up because gravity is stronger at the bottom But according to UA, there are no variations in gravity.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 13, 2021, 03:05:55 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2021, 01:49:49 AM

Quote
There is not sufficient evidence of that.

There's actually evidence of it from an experiment you cite on the your own wiki.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

Quote
Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase

The reason they give for this is
Quote
First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster

Not sure why you would think this supports UA or a flat earth or why you'd have it posted on your wiki.  According to UA, there shouldn't be any "unequal gravitational forces".

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 12, 2021, 03:14:25 AM »
Quote
That's what the Wiki says the EP is. It's indistinguishable.

If gravity produced by an earth accelerating up is indistinguishable from gravity produced by an earth that isn't why doesn't it result in the earth collapsing into a sphere?  If they have different effects, they are distinguishable.
Quote
What happened to this argument: "All this adds up to mean that there is no scenario in which the jumper can consider himself at rest but not in a gravitational field with an accelerating earth without violating the Equivalence Principle."

Now you're saying that a jumper in an upwardly accelerating elevator can consider himself at rest, where the floor accelerates upwards into him, opposite of your initial premise
.

I have no clue how you reached that conclusion, but you're obviously not realizing the signifance of how Einstein defines the equivalence if it doesn't involve an elevator.  I'll make it simple for you. For clarity K is an inertial system and K' is an accelerating one in the quote below.
Quote
The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of co-ordinates, K and K', we call the “principle of equivalence;” this principle is evidently intimately connected with the theorem of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of relativity to co-ordinate systems which are in non-uniform motion relatively to each other. In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K'). The possibility of explaining the numerical equality of inertia and gravitation by the unity of their nature gives to the general theory of relativity, according to my conviction, such a superiority over the conceptions of classical mechanics, that all the difficulties encountered in development must be considered as small in comparison.

According to UA, is there any frame of reference from which a jumper can be considered under the combined influence of inertia and gravity before the earth and jumper meet?  According to the EP, there should be.

If read hard enough, you'll see two other ways UA violates the EP in that same passage.

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 11, 2021, 12:34:02 PM »
The real reason that UA doesn’t work as an explanation is we observe inconsistencies in g across the globe, in a way consistent with a rotating sphere. You weigh less at the equator than the poles, for example. That would not be the case if the earth were flat and accelerating upwards.
The equivalence principle only works in the local context.

FE either denies variations in gravity, or mutters something about Celestial Gravitation although the Wiki page about that literally just says “this might be a thing”.

There are alot of ways FET misinterprets and misapplies the EP to justify UA.  They want to waive the EP flag like it is some sort of magic wand that solves all the issues with FET, but it is a lot more nuanced principle than than they suggest.

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 11, 2021, 12:27:35 PM »
Quote
Really? Where is that?

Here.  At least in this century, the effect we commonly refer to as gravity is caused by GR.

Quote
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"

Quote
It's not a requirement for a person in an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest". They can appropriately consider themselves in motion in an accelerating elevator.

Einstein clearly says that the effects an an upwardly accelerating elevator and a gravitational field are equivalent in his EP elevator analogy. Not sure why you are quoting random Einstein quotes about how "nothing prevents us from considering a system K' as at rest" to justify gravity, when he does not deny that we can consider the experience of being in an upwardly accelerating elevator to be in motion either.

Again you are conflating the acceleration of the reference system and the motion of a person inside of the reference frame.  Provided a person is aware that their reference frame is accelerating, they can consider themselves accelerating by virtue of the fact that motion is transmitted to them.

However, to be at restinside of the elevator i.e. "pinned to the floor" of the elevator, the whole point of the EP is that the person can't determine if gravity is pulling them down to the floor or if the elevator floor is pushing up on them.

As you sit at rest within your reference frame right now, can you determine through your senses alone, whether or not the ground is pushing up or gravity is pulling you down?

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 11, 2021, 03:29:29 AM »
Quote
You appear to be arguing that in the Equivalence Principle a gravitational field is inseparable from an upwardly accelerating surface. Seeing that Einstein uses an elevator accelerating upwards through space as an analogy for the EP, that is clearly incorrect.

You are conflating an observer within a system with the system itself.

In order for an observer accelerating upwards by virtue of being, inside an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest" within the elevator, they must per the EP, assume the presence of a gravitational field.  That's perfectly consistent with the EP. Where ever there is acceleration, there is a gravitational field relative to it. For clarity, that applies to any kind of acceleration, not just "upward"

For an outside observer, who is not in the upward accelerating elevator or "system" to consider the elevator to be at rest, the outside observer must assume the presence of a gravitational field.

Quote
Actually, it doesn't say that GR and UA are indistinguishable
.

By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 11, 2021, 12:15:05 AM »
I decided to use my time out to do some reading and put together some thoughts that have been floating around in my mind for awhile now.

Tom and I have been down the path of how GR resolves the “mystery” the equality of inertial and gravitational mass before. This issue is at the heart of what is wrong with FET reliance on the EP to justify both UA and a flat earth, but he refused to accept any source on the subject other than a “physicist”.

So I went straight to the horse’s mouth on the issue. Hopefully, Einstein is enough of a physicist for him.

The wiki claim that GR doesn’t explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass isn’t just wrong, it exposes a basic lack of understanding of the theory. The whole theory of GR is founded on the unity of inertial and gravitational mass, along with the principle of relativity.

According to GR, there is no substantive difference between “gravitational mass” and “inertial mass”. There is just “mass”, and whether or not it is identified as gravitational or inertial is wholly dependent upon its state of motion and/or frame of reference.

Quote
What is important is only that one is justified at any instant and at will (depending upon the choice of a system of reference) to explain the mechanical behavior of a material point either by gravitation or by inertia. More is not needed; to achieve the essential equivalence of inertia and gravitation

http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/220
Quote
It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we recognize the following fact: The same quality of a body manifests itself according to circumstances as "inertia" or as "weight" (lit."heaviness").

Volume 6: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917 (English translation supplement) page 317 (princeton.edu)

Albert Einstein’s book: The Meaning of Relativity, pg 58
Quote
“…In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K’).

Quote
Kottler claims I had abandoned in my later papers the "principle of equivalence" which I did introduce in order to unify the concepts of "inertial mass"and "gravitational mass”

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/249

Quote
In an example worth considering, the gravitational field has a relative existence only in a manner similar to the electric field generated by electro-magnetic induction….

The thought that one is dealing here with two fundamentally different cases was, for me, unbearable. The difference between these two cases could not be a real difference, but rather, in my conviction, could be only a difference in the choice of reference point. Judged from the magnet there certainty were no electric fields; judged from the conducting circuit there certainly was one. The existence of an electric field was therefore a relative one, depending on the state of motion of the coordinate system being used, and a kind of objective reality could be granted only to the electric and magnetic field together, quite apart from the state of relative motion of the observer or the coordinate system

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/151

The significance of understanding the EP this way is that it unifies gravity and inertia into one field, much like the electromagnetic field. One field is responsible for both inertial and gravitational effects as opposed to two different types of mass resulting in two different effects.  It also follows that whenever there is acceleration, a gravitational field exists relative to it. Acceleration produces inertial effects, inertial effects and gravitational effects are both governed by the gravitational field, therefore, whenever there is acceleration, there is a gravitational field relative to it. The existence of the field is relative and its presence depends on the frame of reference. However, by considering both frames together the field always exists in objective reality.

The relative nature of the gravitational field also means that the EP requires that whenever you consider an accelerating system at rest, you must also assume the presence of a gravitational field relative to it.

Quote
The Principle of Equivalence.

Do the laws of nature, known to us in some approximation, allow us to consider a reference system K' as being at rest if it is in uniform acceleration with respect to K. Or, somewhat more generally: Can the principle of relativity be extended such as to encompass reference systems that are in (uniform) accelerated motion relative to one another. The answer is: insofar as we really know the laws of nature, nothing prevents us from considering a system K' as at rest, provided we assume a gravitational field (homogeneous in first approximation) relative to K'. Because in a homogeneous gravitational field, as with regard to our system K', all bodies fall with the same acceleration independent of their physical nature. I call "principle of equivalence"the assumption that K' can be treated with all rigor as being at rest, such that no law of nature fails to be satisfied relative to K'.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/250

So what does all this mean? Using the often used analogy of jumping off a chair, it means, according the EP, the jumper can
1) Consider the accelerating earth at rest but only if he assumes a gravitational field relative to it exists . In that case, the jumper is subject to the field and is falling from that perspective Or
2) Consider the earth accelerating and he is at rest above the ground with no gravitational field present. That violates the requirement of the EP that whenever there is acceleration, a gravitational field exists relative to it.

It isn’t enough that a field is produced once the ground and the jumper meet.  The concept of a gravitational field being “relative” to the accelerating system implies that there are (at least) two different perspectives.  One in which the field exists, and one in which it doesn’t. If an object is on the surface of the earth and the field only exists on the surface, there is no perspective in which a gravitational field doesn’t exist for that object. There is nothing “relative” about the gravitational field.

All this adds up to mean that there is no scenario in which the jumper can consider himself at rest but not in a gravitational field with an accelerating earth without violating the Equivalence Principle.

RE, however is perfectly consistent with the EP as stated in 1) above because in RE, the earth does accelerate centripetally.

So whatever basis you use to justify UA, you can’t use the EP. There is no “earth rising up to meet” anything.

EDIT: One more thing I forgot to mention.  There is an inherent contradiction in using the EP/UA to argue for a flat earth.  Supposedly, the FET position is that the EP can be applied because the effects of gravity caused by UA and the effects of gravity by GR are indistinguishable.

Except that GR gravity results in massive objects collapsing into spheres and UA gravity doesn’t.  The effects are distinguishable
.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 05, 2021, 05:10:33 PM »
I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”
Conveniently, I already provided you with the source of the ambiguity. I can't force you to see it, let alone to read it, but it's easily available to you should you choose to address it.

it is misleading to say they are incompatible.
That continues to be something you misread/misunderstood because you didn't bother to read on. I already asked you to move on, so now I'm warning you instead. If you can't stay focused enough to finish reading the article, or if you lack the common sense to simply ask questions about things you don't understand, then you're gonna have to take your posting to AR.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible.
This statement is false, and after the amount of wilfully obtuse behaviour from you above, I am convinced that this is completely deliberate. One way or another, this ends now.

I’m not being deliberately obtuse.  I’m trying to figure out where in FET there is room for traditional theories of gravitation.

The wiki says they are incompatible because they require a spherical earth.  That doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room.

10
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 04, 2021, 08:50:37 PM »
Quote
this is a savagely misguided and antiquated understanding of psychological disorders — especially schizophrenia — but let's set that aside for a moment. suppose that it were the case that one could treat schizophrenics by indulging their beliefs. suppose you could just be like "yeah man, the cia and aliens, cool beans" and doing so made them happy, productive members of their communities instead of suicidal social pariahs. would you have a problem with that treatment option?

As the sibling of a schizophrenic and parent of a severely bipolar daughter, I can tell you that I would have a problem with it.  My brother has passed, but believe me when I say that I would cut out my own heart if I thought it would bring my daughter some relief, but expecting the rest of my family, her friends, employers and society in general to feign acceptance of her delusions when she is in a psychotic episode is too much of a physical, emotional and financial burden to place on anyone.  Not to mention that doing that could put her and others in physical danger.

I understand that the transgender issue isn't the same as accepting someone's "identified" gender doesn't really require any great sacrifice and I admit to some mixed feelings about it.  There was one episode she had that I think is somewhat analogous, though.

At one point, she wanted to poke her eyes out because she thought it would stop the hallucinations.  Naturally, that is something that couldn't be indulged...not just because of the obvious physical implications, but because she didn't understand that her eyes weren't the problem.  Poking her eyes out wouldn't stop the hallucinations because the problem was in her mind, not with her vision.

In that way, I'm not sure that reassignment surgery and mutilating one's genitalia is appropriate.  The problem isn't with the presence or absence of sex organs.  The problem is in the mind.  I knew that poking her eyes out would not give my daughter relief and I wonder just how much relief reassignment surgery gives transgender people.  I can't help but suspect that feelings of inadequacy,  loneliness, etc. continue to some extent.

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 04, 2021, 02:09:10 PM »
Quote
But sure. There exists such a definition of "harmony" under which the two exist in harmony, and since you chose to replace one ambiguous definition with another, you should be pretty content with that answer.

I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”. If there is a sense in which the two theories can coexist, then it is misleading to say they are incompatible.

Quote
Yes, this problem will persist until you've actually read beyond the lede and understood the piece of writing you're impotently trying to "gotcha". Nobody can help you there but yourself.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible.  Instead, it goes on to offer an entirely different and entirely incompatible theory. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state that in some ways traditional theories of gravity are consistent with FE and then to on to explain how?

Quote
I repeat (only for the second time, so I appreciate this might not have sunk in just yet): you will not be allowed to derail this thread any further. If you want to carry on shitposting, do so in the right place.

When it was suggested earlier in the thread that FE and gravity weren’t not compatible, you were the one who said that was not true.  I don’t see how pointing out that your wiki says otherwise is derailing the thread or shitposting.  It was a direct response to a comment you made.

If there is some sense in which traditional theories of gravity are compatible, in what way are they?  And directly to the point of the OP, is that limited compatibility responsible for maintaining the shape of the earth (whether RE or FE)?

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 04, 2021, 12:43:41 PM »
Quote
This strictly depends on what you mean by "compatible" - you have been using the term in two distinct meanings, seemingly interchangeably, but presumably with some awareness. Standardising this would be a good first step.

The standard dictionary definition will do.

1: capable of existing together in harmony
compatible theories
compatible people

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compatible

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 04, 2021, 11:59:47 AM »
Quote
Why would I do that? I already told you (this marks the fourth time) that this is not what's being claimed. If you're going to waste our time with low-effort strawmen, do so in the appropriate section of the forum.

Then what is being claimed?  Are traditional theories of gravitation compatible with FE or not?  The wiki says that they are not, clearly and explicitly.  You seem to be suggesting that they are.

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 02:04:48 PM »
That's direct from the wiki page.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Yes, this has been stated three times now, and I successfully read it the first time around. Once again, this has already been addressed. I don't know how to best help you beyond that.

You can explain how traditional theories of gravitation can be both compatible and incompatible with FE at the same time.

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:58:15 PM »
Its a direct quote from the wiki that traditional theories of gravitation are incompatible with FE.
I only just finished explaining this, together with a speculation for how you could have ended up with this misunderstanding. Perhaps reading my post will help?

Quote
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.

That's direct from the wiki page.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Traditional theories of gravitation can't be both compatible and incompatible with FE at the same time.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:40:59 PM »
At least this is what is written in the wiki on Universal Acceleration.
Not true. It sounds like you only read the lede of the article, and thus ended up with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject.

Its a direct quote from the wiki that traditional theories of gravitation are incompatible with FE.  Are you suggesting that those theories are compatible with FE?  That's a pretty blatant contradiction.

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:50:58 AM »

Quote
Gravity causes all bodies beyond a certain mass to be spherical. Without the effect of gravity a planet would not necessarily break apart, but it would not have formed at all.
Note that I refer to gravity as it is described by "mainstream" science and not as described in the FE

Looks like according to “mainstream” science, the earth would break apart without gravity

www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160212-what-would-happen-to-you-if-gravity-stopped-working

18
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 07:45:19 PM »
Quote
I don't want SteelyBob's points or analogies. I want the points and analogies of qualified individuals. If you can't provide that then you guys have lost the argument.

What exactly do you need these qualified individuals to say?

19
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Why is it warmer in the shadow of moonlight rather than cooler?
« on: May 11, 2021, 07:27:09 PM »
Things cool down because they radiate heat.  An object that is "shaded" from moonlight is prevented from radiating as much heat because whatever is shading it will block it.

Same reason a cloudy night will be warmer than a clear night.  The clouds insulate the heat.

20
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 07:07:26 PM »
Quote
Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Matter and weight are inseparable and elemental facts.

But yet, on the Vomit Comet, material things have mass, but they don't have weight.  Do you even know the definition of weight?

When you are on a elevator or a roller coaster, your weight will change, but your mass doesn't.  It's almost as if there is something else that determines your weight, besides mass.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >