Recent Posts

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2021, 08:03:33 AM »
There is not sufficient evidence of that.
QED  :)

By “not sufficient evidence” what you really mean is it’s a result which doesn’t conform to your world view so you simply dismiss it. This is how you roll. If the result showed what you wanted it to then you’d accept it without question or scrutiny. Had the experiment been conducted in a vacuum chamber you’d simply find a different excuse or make up some ad hoc mechanism to explain the result. And thus you get to cling to your beliefs.

There’s an entire field of study which uses variations in g to find minerals underground

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gravity-survey

I’m sure you have some excuse to explain that too. UA doesn’t work as an explanation, it’s just one of the many ad hoc mechanisms you use to explain why the world appears to be a spinning globe.
12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Last post by stack on June 12, 2021, 04:57:16 AM »
Quote
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.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

Right, GR isn't mentioned. But defacto, if you're speaking of "Gravity" wouldn't you be talking about what our common main stream view of such is? That which is described by GR? So, in a sense, if you are relating to main stream "gravity" you are relating to GR as that is the common, deeper description/definition of what gravity is. In short, when you use the term "gravity", you are invoking GR. Just because your shit-all wiki doesn't use the acronym doesn't mean you are not playing in its playground.

How is this lost on you?
13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Last post by fisherman 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.

 
14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by Dr Van Nostrand on June 12, 2021, 02:46:25 AM »
I received my invitation to book an appointment for vaccination today. Finally, this will all be over.

Update: I have made an appointment to be vaccinated. I'll have my second jab at the end of July.

Dude! I just got my second vaccine and now I'm magnetized!  No, I'm serious! Small metal objects stick to me!

I'm going back for another shot! I'm going to increase my magnetic field! My power will grow!!!

I AM MAGNETO!  FEAR ME!!!

oh, wait, it fell off... hang on...  almost got it stuck...  got to really press to get it to stick...   there....

I AM MAGNETO!!!

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/06/10/nurse-uses-key-hairpin-try-prove-she-is-magnetic-vaccine-during-ohio-house-hearing-video/

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/06/09/doctor-sherri-tenpenny-testimony-ohio-lawmakers-vaccines-magnetized-5-g/7616027002/

https://www.newsweek.com/man-attempt-vaccine-magnet-theory-fails-admits-wrong-1599322
15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« Last post by Tom Bishop on June 12, 2021, 01:49:49 AM »
Quote
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.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

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 is not sufficient evidence of that. The experiment was not conducted in a vacuum chamber - https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Pretty weak for your position that there is only a single uncontrolled type of experiment on this.

Quote from: fisherman
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?

That's what the Wiki says the EP is. It's indistinguishable.

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.
16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by honk on June 12, 2021, 01:49:12 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/justice-department-leaks-trump-administration.html

A pathetic display of openly partisan corruption. I also like how this flies in the face of Trump's repeated assertions with virtually every new negative story about him that they were all lies and the sources the journalists referred to didn't exist.
17
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« Last post by Toddler Thork on June 11, 2021, 11:36:07 PM »
I'm going to wash my eyeballs.  >:(
18
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« Last post by rooster on June 11, 2021, 09:52:00 PM »
 ;) :-*

19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by SteelyBob on June 11, 2021, 09:03:08 PM »
Whether or not you take me seriously is not the subject, nor is it any concern of mine.

It's not me you need to worry about - it's the undecided folks reading this. Your refusal to respond to any basic questions, like whether or not you accept the time of flight figure, or to support your apparently arbitrary figure of 32000mph, just makes it look like you're hiding something. The sum total of your arguments on this thread, and indeed others, is simply saying that stuff isn't true. That's not a debate - you need to actually engage in some kind of discussion, providing evidence and data to support your position.

I hold globular believers in very low regard, especially those incapable of performing very basic math.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but levelling an accusation of an inability to perform basic math when you have, on this thread, completely failed to demonstrate any math(s) skills whatsoever is somewhat hypocritical. In this thread alone you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of cartesian and polar coordinates, claimed that ballistic missiles can be aimed by means of a simple quadratic equation...although you've failed to provide that equation, and failed to comprehend that it ain't that simple. You've then plucked a random figure out of thin air, without any evidence at all, and expected us all to accept it as fact to support your argument.

There's a good reason you aren't providing your calculations, isn't there? If you're embarrassed by your mathematical skills, and you're interested in ballistic missile principles, this website has a useful estimate of the NK missile capabilities based on flight time: https://physicsfromplanetearth.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/the-range-of-north-korean-ballistic-missiles/

They have two pages - the second one has a more precise calculation, but that involves trusting the reported apogee height, which I'm assuming you don't.

So far, no one has demonstrated an ICBM even exists.

But you've demonstrated that you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your worldview - what's the point of engaging in debate if you aren't willing to either change your own position, or to offer up compelling evidence in order to change other peoples'? You're just sat there shouting 'it isn't true'.

So, this entire topic belongs in CN.

How much stuff that has been thrown into the mix just on this thread is a typical display of RE-supporters.

Sane person - "You know something, not one ICBM has even been used, RE or FE. Why try to link an ICBM to the shape of the earth, if this is a fact?"

RE supporter - "Because ICBM's are REAL!"

Sane person - "OK. Show me some evidence they are real."

RE supporter - "These reports from government officials, repeated by MSM."

Sane person - "The same governments that are demonstrably lying to you each and every day and have been for millenia? The same MSM that serves as nothing but a propaganda arm for those governments?"

RE supporters - "OK, what about shipping routes and missing land area?"

It really is getting tiresome.

But you yourself have willingly accepted the reported range of a ballistic missile test - you've used that same statistic to argue against RE proponents. At the above link you can see that, if you also accept the time of flight reports to be true, then that's all the information you need to work out that the range of those missiles is indeed intercontinental. You don't need anything else - no NASA, no governments...nothing. If a ballistic missile can fly for 40 or 50 minutes, then it is capable of flying many thousands of miles.

If you're genuinely curious, there's a wealth of information out there. If you're just here to cynically shout that stuff isn't true, then we can't help.
20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by stack on June 11, 2021, 05:24:44 PM »
It really is getting tiresome.

Indeed, quite tiresome. So you've decided to not show us your math as to how you arrived at 32k mph? Is there a reason you won't show us?

As well, yes, straight from the Military Industrial Complex and MSM from 1962, there has actually been a live firing of a ballistic missile with a warhead detonation - Granted, it wasn't flown intercontinentally, but it did leave and re-enter the atmosphere after traveling a 1000+ or so nautical miles, minimum-maximum altitude 98,000' - 260,000' (my bolding):

Test:   Frigate Bird
Time:   23:30 6 May 1962 (GMT)
Location:   Johnston Island
Test Height and Type:   SLBM Airburst; 11,000 Feet
Yield:   600 kt
Device Diameter (inches):   18
Device Length (inches):   46.6
Device Weight (lb.):   717
Frigate Bird was the only US test of an operational ballistic missile with a live warhead. This test involved firing a Polaris A1 missile from a ballistic missile submarine. The missile was launched by the USS Ethan Allen (SSBN-608) at 13:18 (local) from a position 1500 nm east-northeast of Christmas Island. The re-entry vehicle (RV) and warhead flew 1020 nm downrange toward Christmas Island before re-entering the atmosphere 12.5 minutes later, and detonating in an airburst at 11,000 feet. The system tested was a combination of a Polaris A1 SLBM, and a W-47Y1 warhead in a Mk-1 RV. The Mk-1 RV had a beryllium heat-sink heat shield, and with the 717 lb warhead had a gross weight of 900 lb. The missile/RV demonstrated an accuracy on the order of 2200 yards. This warhead had a yield-to-weight ratio of 1.84 kt/kg, but the higher yield Y2 variant tested in Dominic Harlem doubled the yield and nearly doubled tht YTW ratio to 3.61 kt/kg.

The image of the Frigate Bird mushroom cloud was taken through the periscope of the USS Carbonero (SS-337) 480 nm ENE of Christmas Island. The Carbonero (along with the USS Medregal, SS-480) was within 30 miles of the burst point.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dominic.html

Other than riding a missile yourself, I'm not sure what you're looking for...