Post by: AMann on January 09, 2015, 09:41:45 AM
Ok... trying to wrap my head around that. Are there any experiments done that can be shared to confirm? Any evidence of this claim? Or is it simply a proposed mechanism in order to get the Flat-Earth idea around the need for gravity?
I am all for new cool thoughts, but this would require replicable evidence to start believing...
Post by: jroa on January 09, 2015, 10:11:17 AM
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2015, 12:18:18 PM
Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration. I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you?
but how does the equivalence principle account for variations in gravitational fields and gravitational radiation? Are you sure you are not over-simplifying what he said?
Post by: Thork on January 09, 2015, 01:00:21 PM
There are no variations. This is a myth. This is demonstrably true when you consider gold brokering. I can buy a gold oz bullion bar in the uk. It costs exactly the same as a gold oz bullion bar in india. The spot price for gold right now is about £800 an oz.Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration. I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you?
but how does the equivalence principle account for variations in gravitational fields and gravitational radiation? Are you sure you are not over-simplifying what he said?
Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.
Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/606907/troy-weight
troy weight, traditional system of weight in the British Isles based on the grain, pennyweight (24 grains), ounce (20 pennyweights), and pound (12 ounces). The troy grain, pennyweight, and ounce have been used since the Middle Ages to weigh gold, silver, and other precious metals and stones.link (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/606907/troy-weight)
So if your suggestion that there are variations in gravity 0.7% the globularists will have you believe, I can buy an oz of gold in Mexico City (allegedly low gravity) and sell it for a 0.7% premium in Finland.
So if I bought a ton of gold I would make a profit of £346,200 (over half a US million dollars) just by shipping it.
Come on, use your brains. Gravity doesn't vary. The world would be a very different place if it did.
Post by: markjo on January 09, 2015, 01:30:07 PM
Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.That depends on who you ask:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weight
Troy weight is a system of units of mass customarily used for precious metals and gemstones.
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2015, 02:12:56 PM
Quote
Troy Units of Mass
[The “grain” is the same in avoirdupois, troy, and apothecaries units of mass.]
24 grains (gr)
20 pennyweights 12 ounces troy
= 1 pennyweight (dwt)
= 1 ounce troy (oz t) = 480 grains = 1 pound troy (lb t)
= 240 pennyweights = 5760 grains
Seems more likely that Brittanica has a malapropism in its entry. An extremely common malapropism.
Post by: Thork on January 09, 2015, 02:18:57 PM
Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.That depends on who you ask:Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weightTroy weight is a system of units of mass customarily used for precious metals and gemstones.
I asked the encyclopaedia Britannica, collated "by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, including 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents."
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica
Contributors
The 2007 print version of the Britannica has 4,411 contributors, many eminent in their fields, such as Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, astronomer Carl Sagan, and surgeon Michael DeBakey.[42] Roughly a quarter of the contributors are deceased, some as long ago as 1947 (Alfred North Whitehead), while another quarter are retired or emeritus. Most (approximately 98%) contribute to only a single article; however, 64 contributed to three articles, 23 contributed to four articles, 10 contributed to five articles, and 8 contributed to more than five articles. An exceptionally prolific contributor is Christine Sutton of the University of Oxford, who contributed 24 articles on particle physics.
Britannica's authors have included writers such as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and Leon Trotsky, as well as notable independent encyclopaedists such as Isaac Asimov
You asked Wikipedia, collated by any old Tom, Dick, Harry or bored teenager that creates an account.
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2015, 02:23:20 PM
Gold is sold by the Troy ounce. Troy is a measure of weight, not mass.That depends on who you ask:Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weightTroy weight is a system of units of mass customarily used for precious metals and gemstones.
I asked the encyclopaedia Britannica, collated "by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, including 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents."Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_BritannicaContributors[edit]
The 2007 print version of the Britannica has 4,411 contributors, many eminent in their fields, such as Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, astronomer Carl Sagan, and surgeon Michael DeBakey.[42] Roughly a quarter of the contributors are deceased, some as long ago as 1947 (Alfred North Whitehead), while another quarter are retired or emeritus. Most (approximately 98%) contribute to only a single article; however, 64 contributed to three articles, 23 contributed to four articles, 10 contributed to five articles, and 8 contributed to more than five articles. An exceptionally prolific contributor is Christine Sutton of the University of Oxford, who contributed 24 articles on particle physics.
So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?
Also:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_content
Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy. Conversely, Wikipedia is often cited for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."[164]
Post by: Thork on January 09, 2015, 02:29:47 PM
So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?
Well, its interesting you say that ...
Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175962/Earth
It was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.
... because the very pictures used for "direct observation" were hoaxed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY-VWFx4yEU
You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. :D
Post by: Gulliver on January 09, 2015, 02:50:19 PM
So do you agree with EB that orbiting spacecraft directly observed that the Earth was a sphere, or are you going to cherry-pick what you take from EB, choosing only what supports you like some foil-hat-wearing crackpot might?So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?
Well, its interesting you say that ...Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175962/EarthIt was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.
... because the very pictures used for "direct observation" were hoaxed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY-VWFx4yEU
You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. :D
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2015, 02:55:37 PM
So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?
Well, its interesting you say that ...Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175962/EarthIt was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.
... because the very picture used for "direct observation" was hoaxed.
[clipped video]
You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. :D
Why are you assuming that that photo is what is being cited as direct observation? I would think they were referring to the observations directly made by the Apollo astronauts and all subsequent astronauts who did Tom Bishop's work and looked out their window.
Are you going to ignore the excerpt from the National Institute for Standards and Technology's document explicitly listing the Troy Units as mass units?
Post by: Thork on January 09, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
It doesn't look like a sphere when they turn the lights on and remove the cut outs. It could easily be a blue plain.So do you agree with EB that orbiting spacecraft directly observed that the Earth was a sphere, or are you going to cherry-pick what you take from EB, choosing only what supports you like some foil-hat-wearing crackpot might?So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?
Well, its interesting you say that ...Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175962/EarthIt was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.
... because the very pictures used for "direct observation" were hoaxed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY-VWFx4yEU
You'll enjoy that little film, especially the end few minutes. :D
Here is another longer version with better resolution. Check at about 32 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4UVDdUX1IA
Post by: garygreen on January 09, 2015, 06:08:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY-VWFx4yEU
This entire video can be summed up with, "but that's not how I'd have thought it should look." That's not actually an argument. It's just a lack of imagination. And a fallacy.
She should also probably take at least one photography class.
It's a shame you aren't as skeptical of Youtube videos as you are of Wikipedia. As it turns out, anyone can upload a Youtube video saying whatever they want. There's no review process. So it's sort of weird how you just gobble up everything this idiot says.
Post by: Ghost of V on January 09, 2015, 06:47:55 PM
Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration. I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you?
but how does the equivalence principle account for variations in gravitational fields and gravitational radiation? Are you sure you are not over-simplifying what he said?
This is explained by the stars above the Earth disc. They exert their own small gravitational pull that accounts for these discrepancies. Contrary to popular FE belief, there is gravity acting on Earth... just not very much.
Post by: Gulliver on January 09, 2015, 08:43:40 PM
This is explained by the stars above the Earth disc. They exert their own small gravitational pull that accounts for these discrepancies. Contrary to popular FE belief, there is gravity acting on Earth... just not very much.Please do show us the experimental data that supports your conclusion here.
In FET, the stars move with the day and the season. Does your data support that move? Do the discrepancies move too?
What types of discrepancies does this explanation account? All of them? That objects weigh more on the equator than at middle latitudes? That object weigh less with just an increase in altitude? That Foucault pendulums rotate in the opposite direction in the NH than the SH? That discrepancies near oil fields allow the accurate drilling of those fields?
You avoid the question. When is EB a good enough source for you? When is Wikipedia? When is a un-sourced youtube video?It doesn't look like a sphere when they turn the lights on and remove the cut outs. It could easily be a blue plain.So do you agree with EB that orbiting spacecraft directly observed that the Earth was a sphere, or are you going to cherry-pick what you take from EB, choosing only what supports you like some foil-hat-wearing crackpot might?So then you agree with Brittanica when it says the Earth is round?
Well, its interesting you say that ...Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175962/EarthIt was only after the dawn of the space age, however, when photographs from rockets and orbiting spacecraft first captured the dramatic curvature of Earth’s horizon, that the conception of Earth as a roughly spherical planet rather than as a flat entity was verified by direct human observation.
Post by: Ghost of V on January 09, 2015, 08:52:29 PM
Please do show us the experimental data that supports your conclusion here.
In FET, the stars move with the day and the season. Does your data support that move? Do the discrepancies move too?
What types of discrepancies does this explanation account? All of them? That objects weigh more on the equator than at middle latitudes? That object weigh less with just an increase in altitude? That Foucault pendulums rotate in the opposite direction in the NH than the SH? That discrepancies near oil fields allow the accurate drilling of those fields?
This isn't about Foucault pendulums. If you want to discuss that hoax then you should make a new thread.
And yes, the gravitational pull of the stars explains everything you've mentioned here. The fact that there are discrepancies to begin with suggests that the stars have a gravitational pull, as that is the only logical explanation with what we already know about the Earth disc and it adds up mathematically.
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2015, 09:00:06 PM
............ it adds up mathematically.
Would you mind showing the math?
Post by: Gulliver on January 09, 2015, 09:04:45 PM
Wow! That's amazing wrong. Let me be lazy and just point out the larger mistakes.Please do show us the experimental data that supports your conclusion here.
In FET, the stars move with the day and the season. Does your data support that move? Do the discrepancies move too?
What types of discrepancies does this explanation account? All of them? That objects weigh more on the equator than at middle latitudes? That object weigh less with just an increase in altitude? That Foucault pendulums rotate in the opposite direction in the NH than the SH? That discrepancies near oil fields allow the accurate drilling of those fields?
This isn't about Foucault pendulums. If you want to discuss that hoax then you should make a new thread.
And yes, the gravitational pull of the stars explains everything you've mentioned here. The fact that there are discrepancies to begin with suggests that the stars have a gravitational pull, as that is the only logical explanation with what we already know about the Earth disc and it adds up mathematically.
1) Discrepancies by altitude alone is not explained by stars' gravity. The EP (and GR time dilation) explains all very well. Please learn to GR.
2) Discrepancies between the equator and the middle latitude is not explained by the stars' gravity as the stars move seasonally but the discrepancies do not.
3) FPs are not a hoax and have action to due with gravity.
4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
5) Since the oil-field related discrepancies don't move, stars' gravity does not explain those either.
I'm sure Vx could win big money if he published that data.
............ it adds up mathematically.
Would you mind showing the math?
Post by: Tintagel on January 10, 2015, 04:12:12 AM
4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
Hello, pot, this is kettle.
I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics. Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.
Post by: Gulliver on January 10, 2015, 07:02:43 AM
You must be confused. I regularly post links to published scientific articles replete with data. I point to USGS gravity readings. Heck, Tom Bishop claimed this month the the KSU article on modeling gravity discrepancies had data but no hypothesis.4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
Hello, pot, this is kettle.
I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics. Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.
I'm happy to debate relativity and gravity with you without expecting your being an expert on the
Post by: Ghost of V on January 10, 2015, 08:24:17 AM
You must be confused. I regularly post links to published scientific articles replete with data. I point to USGS gravity readings. Heck, Tom Bishop claimed this month the the KSU article on modeling gravity discrepancies had data but no hypothesis.4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
Hello, pot, this is kettle.
I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics. Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.
I'm happy to debate relativity and gravity with you without expecting your being an expert on the
Please note how Tintagel said "data from you", not "data from articles". That's important because we want to know what you think and what data you've collected yourself to support your own dogma.
It's easy to post links. It's difficult to think for yourself.
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2015, 01:55:48 PM
Please note how Tintagel said "data from you", not "data from articles". That's important because we want to know what you think and what data you've collected yourself to support your own dogma.
It's easy to post links. It's difficult to think for yourself.
............ it adds up mathematically.
Would you mind showing the math?
Post by: Tintagel on January 10, 2015, 09:05:50 PM
You must be confused. I regularly post links to published scientific articles replete with data. I point to USGS gravity readings. Heck, Tom Bishop claimed this month the the KSU article on modeling gravity discrepancies had data but no hypothesis.4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
Hello, pot, this is kettle.
I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics. Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.
I'm happy to debate relativity and gravity with you without expecting your being an expert on the
Oblique references to scientific journals are what I'm referring to as "handwaving." It's not hard to get published in a journal. Think for yourself.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list)
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2015, 11:20:51 PM
You must be confused. I regularly post links to published scientific articles replete with data. I point to USGS gravity readings. Heck, Tom Bishop claimed this month the the KSU article on modeling gravity discrepancies had data but no hypothesis.4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
Hello, pot, this is kettle.
I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics. Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.
I'm happy to debate relativity and gravity with you without expecting your being an expert on the
Oblique references to scientific journals are what I'm referring to as "handwaving." It's not hard to get published in a journal. Think for yourself.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list)
Well it is easy getting published in that journal. I hope you don't think all journals are similar? If so, then you need to be a bit more critical in your thinking.
Post by: Ghost of V on January 10, 2015, 11:49:56 PM
Well it is easy getting published in that journal.
If it's so easy then why don't you get an article published in that journal?
Post by: markjo on January 11, 2015, 12:00:08 AM
Well it is easy getting published in that journal.
If it's so easy then why don't you get an article published in that journal?
Better yet, why don't FE'ers get published in that journal?
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2015, 12:18:38 AM
Well it is easy getting published in that journal.
If it's so easy then why don't you get an article published in that journal?
Did you look at her link? It seems like you didn't.
Post by: Ghost of V on January 11, 2015, 12:19:48 AM
It seems like you didn't.
I didn't. I'm sorry.
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2015, 12:24:01 AM
It seems like you didn't.
I didn't. I'm sorry.
You should. It is pretty funny.
Post by: AMann on January 11, 2015, 06:12:34 AM
Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration. I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you?
Since gravity is a force and a force applied to an object causes acceleration, this is something that is already known.
I was asking if there was any evidence of the 'upward' acceleration of the Earth... any experiments conducted... etc.
The trouble I have with the explanation of the Earth accelerating is inertia. The act of accelerating the Earth beneath us would cause inertia which can be felt. And inertia is something that I have experienced many times.
So, now, in addition to wondering if there is any evidence of the 'upward' acceleration of the Earth, why is it that we do not feel the inertia of the acceleration of the Earth?
Post by: Ghost of V on January 11, 2015, 06:34:37 AM
why is it that we do not feel the inertia of the acceleration of the Earth?
Why would we?
Post by: AMann on January 11, 2015, 07:05:37 AM
why is it that we do not feel the inertia of the acceleration of the Earth?
Why would we?
Because that is how inertia works.
You can test it yourself, it is a very easy experiment. Ride in a vehicle, have the driver step on the accelerator and feel yourself pushed back into the chair. As long as you are accelerating, you feel as if you are being pushed in the opposite direction of the acceleration.
It's one of the laws of inertia: For every action (force) there is an equal and opposite (force).
This also works in the up and down orientation and can be felt when traveling by plane, or if you are daring enough, skydiving or bungee jumping.
The force felt is often referred to as g-force, since it is based on the force of gravity (or on a FE site, the acceleration of the same rate that is perceived as the force of gravity).
Post by: Ghost of V on January 11, 2015, 08:02:29 AM
Post by: AMann on January 11, 2015, 08:38:18 AM
It is impossible to discern acceleration from a relative frame of reference. This is called The Equivalence Principle. You might want to study it as it is one of the most basic principles in physics.
I am familiar with the equivalence principle. It states that in any small region of space-time, the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those of an appropriate acceleration of the frame of reference.
Because of this principle, if I was unable to see (if I were in a closed box) and it were in free-fall, I would not be able to tell if I was experiencing the affects of free-fall or the affects of zero-gravity.
Similarly, if I were approaching the Earth at an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, I would not be able to tell if it was gravity working on me or in the case that Earth had no gravity that the Earth was accelerating towards me at the same rate as gravity. (The impact with the Earth would be the same).
The difference between the principle and the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an upward direction is the direction of the forces on our bodies. With gravity, I would be falling to the Earth, whereas with an accelerating Earth, a force pushing up on us. In the case of Gravity, when on the ground, there is no acceleration. In the case an an accelerating Earth, there is an acceleration 'upwards' in which case inertia would work in opposition.
But we digress...
More important than the affects of inertia if certain situations were true is the evidence that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction. Without evidence, the idea, no matter how good it sounds, is merely a guess.
Post by: Gulliver on January 11, 2015, 09:31:52 AM
You did well to point out Vx's oversimplification of the EP. FEers tend to forget that it applies only at a point. Indeed any decent lab can determine that the UA is not the cause of the sensation of gravity. For example, simple experiments show that gravity is radially symmetric. See http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Spacetime-Second-Edition-Ohanian/dp/0393965015 (http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Spacetime-Second-Edition-Ohanian/dp/0393965015)It is impossible to discern acceleration from a relative frame of reference. This is called The Equivalence Principle. You might want to study it as it is one of the most basic principles in physics.
I am familiar with the equivalence principle. It states that in any small region of space-time, the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those of an appropriate acceleration of the frame of reference.
Because of this principle, if I was unable to see (if I were in a closed box) and it were in free-fall, I would not be able to tell if I was experiencing the affects of free-fall or the affects of zero-gravity.
Similarly, if I were approaching the Earth at an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, I would not be able to tell if it was gravity working on me or in the case that Earth had no gravity that the Earth was accelerating towards me at the same rate as gravity. (The impact with the Earth would be the same).
The difference between the principle and the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an upward direction is the direction of the forces on our bodies. With gravity, I would be falling to the Earth, whereas with an accelerating Earth, a force pushing up on us. In the case of Gravity, when on the ground, there is no acceleration. In the case an an accelerating Earth, there is an acceleration 'upwards' in which case inertia would work in opposition.
But we digress...
More important than the affects of inertia if certain situations were true is the evidence that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction. Without evidence, the idea, no matter how good it sounds, is merely a guess.
Post by: Ghost of V on January 11, 2015, 07:27:47 PM
It is impossible to discern acceleration from a relative frame of reference. This is called The Equivalence Principle. You might want to study it as it is one of the most basic principles in physics.
I am familiar with the equivalence principle. It states that in any small region of space-time, the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those of an appropriate acceleration of the frame of reference.
Because of this principle, if I was unable to see (if I were in a closed box) and it were in free-fall, I would not be able to tell if I was experiencing the affects of free-fall or the affects of zero-gravity.
Similarly, if I were approaching the Earth at an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, I would not be able to tell if it was gravity working on me or in the case that Earth had no gravity that the Earth was accelerating towards me at the same rate as gravity. (The impact with the Earth would be the same).
The difference between the principle and the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an upward direction is the direction of the forces on our bodies. With gravity, I would be falling to the Earth, whereas with an accelerating Earth, a force pushing up on us. In the case of Gravity, when on the ground, there is no acceleration. In the case an an accelerating Earth, there is an acceleration 'upwards' in which case inertia would work in opposition.
But we digress...
More important than the affects of inertia if certain situations were true is the evidence that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction. Without evidence, the idea, no matter how good it sounds, is merely a guess.
Wrong. Equivalence principle is why we don't feel Earth accelerating. If you want to argue the merit of the Equivalence Principle then you are in the wrong place. I'm sure Einstein would love to hear your theories on how he was wrong, but unfortunately he's dead so I guess we'll never know.
Either way, my money is on Einstein. Unless you're claiming to be smarter than him. Are you?
Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 07:39:56 PM
Einstein came to the conclusion that the effect that most people think of as gravity is exactly the same as acceleration. I think he was a pretty smart guy, don't you?
Einstein also said that there is a finite maximum speed in the universe, regardless of the referential, that is the speed of light. So if the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 since roughly 4 billion years, it has reached the maximum velocity a long time ago. We should thus all be floating in the air.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2015, 07:45:36 PM
Einstein also said that there is a finite maximum speed in the universe, regardless of the referential, that is the speed of light. So if the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 since roughly 4 billion years, it has reached the maximum velocity a long time ago. We should thus all be floating in the air.Please read the FAQ. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F) More detailed explanation available here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration).
Post by: Gulliver on January 11, 2015, 08:54:45 PM
Wrong. Equivalence principle is why we don't feel Earth accelerating. If you want to argue the merit of the Equivalence Principle then you are in the wrong place. I'm sure Einstein would love to hear your theories on how he was wrong, but unfortunately he's dead so I guess we'll never know.Wrong. We do feel gravity, with a few exceptions like a small part of a roller coaster ride. In FET that sensation is caused by the earth accelerating.
Either way, my money is on Einstein. Unless you're claiming to be smarter than him. Are you?
Oh and Einstein believed that the earth orbits the sun. Are you claiming to be smarter than Einstein?
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2015, 09:04:19 PM
Einstein denied the existence of black holes, discovered the universe was expanding only to declare he must be wrong and tried to join the second law of thermodynamics (which says that heat always tends to pass from the hotter to the cooler) with laws of mechanics. He made some pretty dumb guesses.Wrong. Equivalence principle is why we don't feel Earth accelerating. If you want to argue the merit of the Equivalence Principle then you are in the wrong place. I'm sure Einstein would love to hear your theories on how he was wrong, but unfortunately he's dead so I guess we'll never know.Wrong. We do feel gravity, with a few exceptions like a small part of a roller coaster ride. In FET that sensation is caused by the earth accelerating.
Either way, my money is on Einstein. Unless you're claiming to be smarter than him. Are you?
Oh and Einstein believed that the earth orbits the sun. Are you claiming to be smarter than Einstein?
Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 09:46:17 PM
Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.Einstein also said that there is a finite maximum speed in the universe, regardless of the referential, that is the speed of light. So if the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 since roughly 4 billion years, it has reached the maximum velocity a long time ago. We should thus all be floating in the air.Please read the FAQ. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F) More detailed explanation available here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration).
But nothing in what I read gives any explanation. I can sum up what I read in the following way:
- there is no gravity (in the sense of Newton or General relativity); rather, the earth is accelerating and we feel it as gravity (equivalence principle)
- nothing can go faster than the speed of light
- but still, the earth accelerates always at g, and also never reaches c
- because: magic
Well, actually, I came up with that last part. But still, it's a far better explanation than what you propose, which is... nothing.
Post by: Tintagel on January 11, 2015, 10:32:41 PM
- because: magic
Actually, because math.
This may help: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light)
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 11, 2015, 10:33:36 PM
Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.Einstein also said that there is a finite maximum speed in the universe, regardless of the referential, that is the speed of light. So if the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 since roughly 4 billion years, it has reached the maximum velocity a long time ago. We should thus all be floating in the air.Please read the FAQ. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F) More detailed explanation available here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration).
But nothing in what I read gives any explanation. I can sum up what I read in the following way:
- there is no gravity (in the sense of Newton or General relativity); rather, the earth is accelerating and we feel it as gravity (equivalence principle)
- nothing can go faster than the speed of light
- but still, the earth accelerates always at g, and also never reaches c
- because: magic
Well, actually, I came up with that last part. But still, it's a far better explanation than what you propose, which is... nothing.
They'll get you with Special relativity, mostly that you can always approach the speed of light and never reach it. Ignoring two things, one that the universe would by now be completely gone due to the lensing effect, two that SR is based on the assumption that general relativity is true.
General Relativity says gravity is real.
If gravity is real then earth cant be flat. so on so forth.
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 11, 2015, 10:33:48 PM
- because: magic
Actually, because math.
This may help: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light)
see?
Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 10:41:52 PM
No, sorry, it doesn't help at all. All it says is that the speed of light is the maximum speed possible in the universe, which is true.
- because: magic
Actually, because math.
This may help: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light)
The necessary consequence of that is that the Earth cannot accelerate forever.
(Incidentally, it's quite ironic that Einstein's special relativity is used to make a point, but the rest of Einstein's ideas are completely dismissed, in particular General relativity, which functions in a universe where the Earth (and all sufficiently large bodies) are round. If that's not a perfect example of cherry picking, I don't know what it is...)
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.Einstein also said that there is a finite maximum speed in the universe, regardless of the referential, that is the speed of light. So if the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 since roughly 4 billion years, it has reached the maximum velocity a long time ago. We should thus all be floating in the air.Please read the FAQ. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F) More detailed explanation available here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration).
But nothing in what I read gives any explanation. I can sum up what I read in the following way:
- there is no gravity (in the sense of Newton or General relativity); rather, the earth is accelerating and we feel it as gravity (equivalence principle)
- nothing can go faster than the speed of light
- but still, the earth accelerates always at g, and also never reaches c
- because: magic
Well, actually, I came up with that last part. But still, it's a far better explanation than what you propose, which is... nothing.
Special Relativity dictates that as you approach c, time dilates, mass increases and length contracts such that, from your frame of reference, you appear to be accelerating at a constant rate even though your acceleration curve becomes asymptotic with the velocity c as the limit.
Post by: Tintagel on January 11, 2015, 11:13:18 PM
If gravity is real then earth cant be flat. so on so forth.
This is also not true. Some of us believe gravitation exists.
Post by: AMann on January 12, 2015, 12:22:22 AM
It is impossible to discern acceleration from a relative frame of reference. This is called The Equivalence Principle. You might want to study it as it is one of the most basic principles in physics.
I am familiar with the equivalence principle. It states that in any small region of space-time, the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those of an appropriate acceleration of the frame of reference.
Because of this principle, if I was unable to see (if I were in a closed box) and it were in free-fall, I would not be able to tell if I was experiencing the affects of free-fall or the affects of zero-gravity.
Similarly, if I were approaching the Earth at an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, I would not be able to tell if it was gravity working on me or in the case that Earth had no gravity that the Earth was accelerating towards me at the same rate as gravity. (The impact with the Earth would be the same).
The difference between the principle and the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an upward direction is the direction of the forces on our bodies. With gravity, I would be falling to the Earth, whereas with an accelerating Earth, a force pushing up on us. In the case of Gravity, when on the ground, there is no acceleration. In the case an an accelerating Earth, there is an acceleration 'upwards' in which case inertia would work in opposition.
But we digress...
More important than the affects of inertia if certain situations were true is the evidence that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction. Without evidence, the idea, no matter how good it sounds, is merely a guess.
Wrong. Equivalence principle is why we don't feel Earth accelerating. If you want to argue the merit of the Equivalence Principle then you are in the wrong place. I'm sure Einstein would love to hear your theories on how he was wrong, but unfortunately he's dead so I guess we'll never know.
Either way, my money is on Einstein. Unless you're claiming to be smarter than him. Are you?
I do not claim to be smarter than anyone in particular. The fact of the matter is that in spite of how smart someone is, knowledge increases with generations as it is built on itself. I would highly doubt that I am smarter than Pythagoreas either, but I am confident that my math knowledge is above his simply because we have learned more since his time and built upon his concepts.
As I already said however, we are digressing from the point of the thread, which is looking for evidence of the idea that the Earth is accelerating in an 'upward' direction, which mimics the effects of gravity.
I do know that not everyone who believes the Earth is flat throw out the concept of gravity, so I am only looking for the evidence acquired that gave rise to the idea that the Earth was accelerating as opposed to being under the effects of gravity.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2015, 03:28:28 AM
Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.So you knowingly and willingly tried lying to us about the Earth accelerating past the speed of light? That's not gonna win you any friends.
Post by: Sceptom on January 12, 2015, 11:24:38 PM
From my frame of reference? I don't know which one is it.Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.
But nothing in what I read gives any explanation. I can sum up what I read in the following way:
- there is no gravity (in the sense of Newton or General relativity); rather, the earth is accelerating and we feel it as gravity (equivalence principle)
- nothing can go faster than the speed of light
- but still, the earth accelerates always at g, and also never reaches c
- because: magic
Well, actually, I came up with that last part. But still, it's a far better explanation than what you propose, which is... nothing.
Special Relativity dictates that as you approach c, time dilates, mass increases and length contracts such that, from your frame of reference, you appear to be accelerating at a constant rate even though your acceleration curve becomes asymptotic with the velocity c as the limit.
The only relevant frame of reference here is the earth's one, where people live. For them (for us, actually) there is no time dilatation nor length contraction as we are in the same frame of reference.
As Earth approaches c, always more energy is needed to continue accelerating, until infinite energy would be needed, which is impossible. Any massive object cannot reach c (regardless of the frame of reference by the way). So acceleration cannot go on forever.
I don't know what you heard about special relativity, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Post by: Sceptom on January 12, 2015, 11:26:51 PM
I don't see what is the basis for this accusation... is it a joke maybe? (English is not my first language, so there are things I sometimes wouldn't get...)Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.So you knowingly and willingly tried lying to us about the Earth accelerating past the speed of light? That's not gonna win you any friends.
Post by: Gulliver on January 12, 2015, 11:39:03 PM
RS is correct. SR does allow for the FE acceleration to continue indefinitely, but only with at least a centillion (10^303) joules, so far. Of course, that's just unreasonable.From my frame of reference? I don't know which one is it.Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.
But nothing in what I read gives any explanation. I can sum up what I read in the following way:
- there is no gravity (in the sense of Newton or General relativity); rather, the earth is accelerating and we feel it as gravity (equivalence principle)
- nothing can go faster than the speed of light
- but still, the earth accelerates always at g, and also never reaches c
- because: magic
Well, actually, I came up with that last part. But still, it's a far better explanation than what you propose, which is... nothing.
Special Relativity dictates that as you approach c, time dilates, mass increases and length contracts such that, from your frame of reference, you appear to be accelerating at a constant rate even though your acceleration curve becomes asymptotic with the velocity c as the limit.
The only relevant frame of reference here is the earth's one, where people live. For them (for us, actually) there is no time dilatation nor length contraction as we are in the same frame of reference.
As Earth approaches c, always more energy is needed to continue accelerating, until infinite energy would be needed, which is impossible. Any massive object cannot reach c (regardless of the frame of reference by the way). So acceleration cannot go on forever.
I don't know what you heard about special relativity, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Post by: Sceptom on January 13, 2015, 07:49:06 AM
I did oversimplify a bit. I meant: acceleration cannot go on forever at g. I can agree on the asymptotic approach to c which means there could "always" be an acceleration, but never at g.RS is correct. SR does allow for the FE acceleration to continue indefinitely, but only with at least a centillion (10^303) joules, so far. Of course, that's just unreasonable.From my frame of reference? I don't know which one is it.
Special Relativity dictates that as you approach c, time dilates, mass increases and length contracts such that, from your frame of reference, you appear to be accelerating at a constant rate even though your acceleration curve becomes asymptotic with the velocity c as the limit.
The only relevant frame of reference here is the earth's one, where people live. For them (for us, actually) there is no time dilatation nor length contraction as we are in the same frame of reference.
As Earth approaches c, always more energy is needed to continue accelerating, until infinite energy would be needed, which is impossible. Any massive object cannot reach c (regardless of the frame of reference by the way). So acceleration cannot go on forever.
I don't know what you heard about special relativity, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
There is one huge problem, though: where does this tremendous energy come from? I mean, you're talking about a centillion joules but it's by far a gross underestimation. If you want to talk big numbers, try Graham's number, and still you wouldn't have enough energy to keep accelerating.
And even then, if I granted some magical energy to continue acceleration, and some magical law of physics that allows indefinite acceleration at g while never reaching c (after all, a FEer cannot adhere entirely to reality-based science, or he wouldn't be a FEer in the first place), there are still other problems: for example, I read on another thread that GPS do work with satellites. What makes them accelerate? if they have to stay at the same altitude, they have to accelerate at the same rate as the earth, otherwise they would crash as earth accelerates towards them.
Post by: AMann on January 14, 2015, 08:15:32 AM
Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?
Post by: Tintagel on January 14, 2015, 03:21:12 PM
ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.
Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?
The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity.
Post by: Rama Set on January 14, 2015, 03:27:52 PM
ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.
Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?
The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity.
For it to be evidence for UA to t would have to exclude gravitation as a possibility. Your example does not do that and so it cannot be cited.
Post by: Tintagel on January 14, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.
Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?
The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity.
For it to be evidence for UA to t would have to exclude gravitation as a possibility. Your example does not do that and so it cannot be cited.
Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration. They simply assert that there is literally no difference between the two forces, rather than equivalence. They cite it simply because it has been proven that the two forces are physically equivalent, and take the next logical step.
I use third person pronouns here for clarity, as I believe gravitation exists, and therefore do not support the UA model, personally.
Post by: Rama Set on January 14, 2015, 04:41:11 PM
ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.
Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?
The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity.
For it to be evidence for UA to t would have to exclude gravitation as a possibility. Your example does not do that and so it cannot be cited.
Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration. They simply assert that there is literally no difference between the two forces, rather than equivalence. They cite it simply because it has been proven that the two forces are physically equivalent, and take the next logical step.
I use third person pronouns here for clarity, as I believe gravitation exists, and therefore do not support the UA model, personally.
Regardless, it does not mean that your example is evidence for UA. It means it is evidence for either gravitation or UA.
Gravitation then goes on to predict phenomena like the perihelion of mercury; gravitational lensing variations in g corresponding to altitude, latitide and local land-masses; the cavendish experiment; and gravitational radiation. All of which have been observed.
Post by: AMann on January 14, 2015, 07:44:44 PM
ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.
Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?
The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity.
That is an explanation not evidence.
The equivalence principle only attempts to show that there is little difference between the force of gravity and an acceleration of equal proportions. It is not however evidence that our perception of gravity is based on acceleration.
What empirical evidence is there that the Earth is accelerating?
Post by: markjo on January 15, 2015, 12:43:00 AM
Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.Those who use Einstein's reasoning to support the UA don't understand that the equivalence principle only applies to homogenous gravitational fields. Once tidal forces or any other miscellaneous influences are introduced, the EP no longer applies.
Post by: Thork on January 15, 2015, 12:25:17 PM
Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be? Should traders be selling their products during neap tides? Do NASA schedule rocket launches around these events? Are long jump and javelin records dependant on the celestial bodies? Do snipers adjust for celestial gravitation?Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.Those who use Einstein's reasoning to support the UA don't understand that the equivalence principle only applies to homogenous gravitational fields. Once tidal forces or any other miscellaneous influences are introduced, the EP no longer applies.
This is madness. You can throw in Round Earth Theory, but don't state it as fact without verifiable evidence.
Post by: markjo on January 15, 2015, 02:44:02 PM
To a very small extent, yes.Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be?Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.Those who use Einstein's reasoning to support the UA don't understand that the equivalence principle only applies to homogenous gravitational fields. Once tidal forces or any other miscellaneous influences are introduced, the EP no longer applies.
Should traders be selling their products during neap tides?It depends on what they're selling.
Do NASA schedule rocket launches around these events?I suppose that would depend on the particular mission.
Are long jump and javelin records dependant on the celestial bodies? Do snipers adjust for celestial gravitation?To a very small extent, yes. However, the wind would be a far greater influence.
This is madness.Yes, Thork, it seems that you are finally succumbing to your own madness. Such a shame. :'(
You can throw in Round Earth Theory, but don't state it as fact without verifiable evidence.Are you saying that very sensitive gravimeters aren't verifiable?
Post by: Thork on January 15, 2015, 03:51:20 PM
Good job, Markjo. Way to rebut.
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2015, 04:39:01 PM
So everything is either "to a small extent" to the point where there is no real world example, or it "depends" on all kinds of unspecified factors, or it can be demonstrated on a device that measures a thing I'm telling you doesn't exist in the first place.
Good job, Markjo. Way to rebut.
I suppose the truth should not get in the way of a good rebuttal.
Post by: garygreen on January 15, 2015, 06:00:45 PM
Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be? Should traders be selling their products during neap tides?
This is maybe my favorite Thork argument. I don't think you understand how commodities are traded.
Let's suppose we live in some wacky world where I trade commodities by always weighing them out in front of the buyer or seller and for some reason getting to choose the time and place of weighing. I want to take advantage of the gravitational effects of the Moon to flip 1 kilogram of gold for a profit; so, I buy my kilogram of gold and wait to sell it until the Moon is directly beneath me in its orbit around the Earth (thus pulling the kilogram of gold toward the scale and increasing its weight).
How much extra cash would I net? Not much. Newton's Laws predict (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=newton%27s+fourth+law&a=*C.newton%27s+fourth+law-_*Formula.dflt-&a=*FS-_**NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.F-.*NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m1-.*NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m2-.*NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.r--&f3=7.34767309%C3%9710%5E22+kg&f=NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m1%5Cu005f7.34767309%C3%9710%5E22+kg&f4=1+kg&f=NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m2%5Cu005f1+kg&f5=397100+km&f=NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.r_397100+km) that the Moon would increase its weight by only 0.0000311 Newtons, or 0.000003171 kilograms-force (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=newtons+to+kg&f1=0.0000311&f=UnitsConversion2.fromValue_0.0000311).
Gold currently sells for $40,500 per kilogram (http://goldprice.org/gold-price-per-kilo.html). So, for each kilogram you bought and sold in this manner, you'd net $0.12.
Even if commodities were traded in such an absurd manner, I don't see how this illustrates an inconsistency with gravitation.
*I haven't taken a physics course in over a decade. Someone correct me if I'm getting these relationship all wrong. It's a definite possibility.
Post by: Sceptom on January 15, 2015, 06:43:40 PM
If the feeling of gravity is actually the result of upwards acceleration, how is it that you weigh less when you're in altitude?
EDIT: I see that another thread (g is not homogenous) covers the same topic... I'll read it first and see if I find a satisfactory answer.
Post by: Gulliver on January 15, 2015, 07:33:47 PM
You forgot three minor issues. First you should include the diameter of earth in "r". This correction lessens the profit by about a mil. Second, the moon's orbit is not such that it will be directly underneath, though over the course of a year, it will be about once. Third, gold is traded by mass, not weight. See: http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/GD_Rules3.pdf (http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/GD_Rules3.pdf) Annex G.Are you suggesting that all weights and measures are dependant on where the moon and sun happen to be? Should traders be selling their products during neap tides?
This is maybe my favorite Thork argument. I don't think you understand how commodities are traded.
Let's suppose we live in some wacky world where I trade commodities by always weighing them out in front of the buyer or seller and for some reason getting to choose the time and place of weighing. I want to take advantage of the gravitational effects of the Moon to flip 1 kilogram of gold for a profit; so, I buy my kilogram of gold and wait to sell it until the Moon is directly beneath me in its orbit around the Earth (thus pulling the kilogram of gold toward the scale and increasing its weight).
How much extra cash would I net? Not much. Newton's Laws predict (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=newton%27s+fourth+law&a=*C.newton%27s+fourth+law-_*Formula.dflt-&a=*FS-_**NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.F-.*NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m1-.*NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m2-.*NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.r--&f3=7.34767309%C3%9710%5E22+kg&f=NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m1%5Cu005f7.34767309%C3%9710%5E22+kg&f4=1+kg&f=NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.m2%5Cu005f1+kg&f5=397100+km&f=NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.r_397100+km) that the Moon would increase its weight by only 0.0000311 Newtons, or 0.000003171 kilograms-force (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=newtons+to+kg&f1=0.0000311&f=UnitsConversion2.fromValue_0.0000311).
Gold currently sells for $40,500 per kilogram (http://goldprice.org/gold-price-per-kilo.html). So, for each kilogram you bought and sold in this manner, you'd net $0.12.
Even if commodities were traded in such an absurd manner, I don't see how this illustrates an inconsistency with gravitation.
*I haven't taken a physics course in over a decade. Someone correct me if I'm getting these relationship all wrong. It's a definite possibility.
So nope. Thork is wrong.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 15, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
First you should include the diameter of earth in "r". This correction lessens the profit by about a mil.No, it increases it, as long as we assume that the gold is located on the earth's surface (and RET, of course). The shortest possible distance between the moon and the gold (at which the moon would theoretically lower the weight the most) lowers by the radius of earth, while the greatest possible distance increases by it. The overall amplitude therefore increases by the earth's diameter from Gary's estimation.
Third, gold is traded by mass, not weight. See: http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/GD_Rules3.pdf (http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/GD_Rules3.pdf) Annex G.The assumption that gold is traded by weight was specified by Gary in his post for the sake of an argument. Pointing out that an assumption in a proof by contradiction is incorrect is a redundant statement.
So nope. Thork is wrong.Well, of course.
Post by: Gulliver on January 15, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
The force, and therefore the weight, and therefore the profit by weight, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Gary probably understated that distance. The larger the distance, the less the profit.First you should include the diameter of earth in "r". This correction lessens the profit by about a mil.No, it increases it, as long as we assume that the gold is located on the earth's surface (and RET, of course). The shortest possible distance between the moon and the gold (at which the moon would theoretically lower the weight the most) lowers by the radius of earth, while the greatest possible distance increases by it. The overall amplitude therefore increases by the earth's diameter from Gary's estimation.
Post by: markjo on January 15, 2015, 08:37:39 PM
So everything is either "to a small extent" to the point where there is no real world example, or it "depends" on all kinds of unspecified factors...Yup, pretty much.
...or it can be demonstrated on a device that measures a thing I'm telling you doesn't exist in the first place.Do you understand the difference between a scale and a balance?
Good job, Markjo. Way to rebut.I'd say that my rebuttal is at least as strong as your assertion.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 15, 2015, 09:14:51 PM
The force, and therefore the weight, and therefore the profit by weight, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Gary probably understated that distance. The larger the distance, the less the profit.No, the larger the difference between the squares of the two distances, the greater the profit. Perhaps an illustration of the situation considered will be helpful here:
|
The mass of the gold (m) and the moon (M) should hopefully not change throughout the experiment. The difference between R1 and R2 will be affected by 2 things: the shape of the orbit (which I'm ignoring here, since it doesn't have to do with your misled objection) and the radius of the earth. In the case of R2, including the radius of the earth diminishes the distance between the gold and the moon, but in case of R1 it increases it. As such, the difference between the distances becomes greater, and thus the difference between the two results of
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2015, 10:33:12 PM
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 15, 2015, 10:40:24 PM
buy when R2 is high and sell when it is low.Why would you buy when R2 exists at all (i.e. the moon is behind the earth and pulls down on your precious gold) when you can simply buy in case of R1 (moon directly above you, pulling your precious gold away from earth and making it lighter == cheaper)?
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2015, 11:41:27 PM
buy when R2 is high and sell when it is low.Why would you buy when R2 exists at all (i.e. the moon is behind the earth and pulls down on your precious gold) when you can simply buy in case of R1 (moon directly above you, pulling your precious gold away from earth and making it lighter == cheaper)?
Mostly because I was confused by your diagram and meant the opposite. Gah!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 15, 2015, 11:43:15 PM
Mostly because I was confused by your diagram and meant the opposite. Gah!I bet you were stunned by the earth's handsome visage.
Post by: AMann on January 16, 2015, 12:23:32 AM
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 16, 2015, 12:25:07 AM
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Post by: Tintagel on January 16, 2015, 12:30:42 AM
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Or, to spell it out for our friend AMann, the earth accelerates upward to meet the apple.
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2015, 12:58:51 AM
Mostly because I was confused by your diagram and meant the opposite. Gah!I bet you were stunned by the earth's handsome visage.
Not only flat but mansome.
Post by: markjo on January 16, 2015, 01:33:05 AM
Incorrect. The earth rises to meet the apple.So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Post by: Tintagel on January 16, 2015, 04:06:07 AM
Incorrect. The earth rises to meet the apple.So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Markjo: converted!
Post by: Gulliver on January 16, 2015, 06:29:18 AM
Tintagel: Converted (to an FET with acceleration as the reason for earthly gravity)So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Or, to spell it out for our friend AMann, the earth accelerates upward to meet the apple.
Post by: AMann on January 16, 2015, 07:53:00 AM
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Or, to spell it out for our friend AMann, the earth accelerates upward to meet the apple.
Sadly, that is not evidence. The fact that the apple and the Earth meet when dropped within the atmosphere of the Earth is only proof that a force acts on either the apple or the Earth, but it is not in itself evidence specifically that the Earth is accelerating 'upwards'.
Do you actually have something or is this wiki just a joke?
Post by: Gulliver on January 16, 2015, 10:17:15 AM
Just to springboard from your post, there are at least two easy, verifiable, repeatable, and objective experiments to determine whether the apple falls or the earth rises.So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Or, to spell it out for our friend AMann, the earth accelerates upward to meet the apple.
Sadly, that is not evidence. The fact that the apple and the Earth meet when dropped within the atmosphere of the Earth is only proof that a force acts on either the apple or the Earth, but it is not in itself evidence specifically that the Earth is accelerating 'upwards'.
Do you actually have something or is this wiki just a joke?
Foucault's Pendulums are common in the lobby of children's museums. Their latitude predicts the direction and magnitude of their precession. Indeed the procession is in opposite directions in the Southern versus Northern hemisphere. Any FEer could buy one for a few hundred dollars and determine the answer.
Precise gravimeters are in many high school budgets. A field trip down into a deep salt mine to measure the lesser gravity there as compared with the surface would disprove FET.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 16, 2015, 10:21:51 AM
Sadly, that is not evidence. The fact that the apple and the Earth meet when dropped within the atmosphere of the Earth is only proof that a force acts on either the apple or the Earth, but it is not in itself evidence specifically that the Earth is accelerating 'upwards'.By the same standards, the theory of universal gravitation cannot be proven because all you can verify that there's a certain force acting between certain items in certain places. How boring.
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2015, 05:41:05 PM
This is actually true. From an epistemological perspective, scientific theories can never be proven. They can be submitted to continued scrutiny, however, and continue to successfully model and predict observations. Sorry if this is boring to you. Might I recommend a career as a skilled tradesman?Sadly, that is not evidence. The fact that the apple and the Earth meet when dropped within the atmosphere of the Earth is only proof that a force acts on either the apple or the Earth, but it is not in itself evidence specifically that the Earth is accelerating 'upwards'.By the same standards, the theory of universal gravitation cannot be proven because all you can verify that there's a certain force acting between certain items in certain places. How boring.
Post by: aninterestedparty on January 17, 2015, 07:48:32 AM
from the bedford level test, to the time-honoured test of looking out the window.
but because no (normal) person feels the need to test that the earth is round, the only tests have been done by people with a vested interest in FET or the desire to stir the pot. that is like asking Hitler about the holocaust. (not quite)
all i'm saying is that it would be financially beneficial for Samuel Rothbowham to claim that he had proved that the Earth was flat. No university or research body of any repute has ever tested this, because there is nothing to test.
Any evidence for a round earth is promptly dismissed as a conspiracy.
this website is a debauchery of the scientific method in every sense of the word.
Post by: AMann on February 10, 2015, 07:32:39 PM
to be perfectly honest, the only 'proofs' are based on the fact that the earth looks like it is flat.
from the bedford level test, to the time-honoured test of looking out the window.
but because no (normal) person feels the need to test that the earth is round, the only tests have been done by people with a vested interest in FET or the desire to stir the pot. that is like asking Hitler about the holocaust. (not quite)
all i'm saying is that it would be financially beneficial for Samuel Rothbowham to claim that he had proved that the Earth was flat. No university or research body of any repute has ever tested this, because there is nothing to test.
Any evidence for a round earth is promptly dismissed as a conspiracy.
this website is a debauchery of the scientific method in every sense of the word.
I agree with you completely. There is sadly no science here at all, not that I expected much. I had hoped that the fabricated flat Earth thought experiment would of had more substance, but I guess it is difficult to create believable deceptions without having any evidence to back it.
I highly expect that most of those who claim to believe in a flat Earth are simply having fun at everyone's expense. There are not many who are truly deceived by the notion. I do not truly have any evidence for this belief, but the way they dodge questions, answer with obviously faulty data and logic and simply deny anything they can't explain leads me to this conclusion.
We do know that gravity exists, so this post was a little pointless. And we have a lot more experimental data than simply observation of falling objects from a single perspective - the equivalence principle is a cute misdirection, but ultimately a useless way to try and counter the fact, theory or laws of gravity (whichever they were trying to counter).
Ultimately, gravity is the flat Earth thought experiment's achille's heel. There is actually no way to explain all the aspects of gravity (from the force that keeps us on the surface of the Earth to the tidal forces from the gravitations of the Sun and Moon) in a way that makes a flat Earth make sense (as can be seen by pretty much any thread on this site).
I guess my new question (can make it on a new thread if you like) is: what is the point of trying to convince people the world is flat?