*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2016, 04:04:00 PM »
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.

Quote
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2016, 05:54:23 PM »
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.

Quote
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)

Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.

- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.

So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2016, 06:03:48 PM »
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.

Quote
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)

Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.

- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.

So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

Again, as discussed in the other thread, you are not applying the concepts correctly. Please take a bit to research a bit further so you don't continue to sound so foolish.

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2016, 06:20:01 PM »
Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.
I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.

Quote
But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).
What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)

Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.

- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.

So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

Again, as discussed in the other thread, you are not applying the concepts correctly. Please take a bit to research a bit further so you don't continue to sound so foolish.

I apologise for making you look foolish, as discussed in the other thread.

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2016, 07:28:37 PM »
I apologise for making you look foolish, as discussed in the other thread.

Be careful about tossing out insults. You never know when you might be wrong. For example...

Quote
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
Relative to what? Saying "its velocity is such and such" is meaningless without a frame of reference. Regardless of the frame of reference, it won't be faster than the speed of light (see junker's equation).

Quote
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
Again, relative to what? Length contraction happens to objects moving quickly relative to the observer. Since the observers (us) are on earth, the earth and anything moving slowly relative to the earth won't appear to experience significant length contraction.

Quote
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
Yep! Keep in mind, the object moving quickly can't observe length contraction of itself, because it isn't moving relative to itself.

Quote
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light
Again, relative to what? Rest mass would remain the same. Relativistic mass would increase relative to some outside fast moving observer, but we wouldn't observe our own relativistic mass increasing.

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2016, 07:50:08 PM »
This guy thinks mass = massiveness. Why are yall even wasting your time responding to him.

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2016, 08:15:50 PM »
This guy thinks mass = massiveness. Why are yall even wasting your time responding to him.

In general, mass and massiveness refer to the same thing. The distinction he is failing to make is between rest mass and relativistic mass.

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2016, 04:20:12 AM »
Ironic that Flat Earthers will openly, actively, vehemently deny science because they can't see it with their own eyes yet they will rely upon science that they absolutely can't see (special relativity) with their own eyes to attempt to bolster and support their fantasy of what they want the world to be.

What is the frame of reference FES uses to determine the acceleration of the Earth?

Since, as has been stated, velocity/acceleration are meaningless without a frame of reference how did FES come to the conclusion that the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 and this constant acceleration is what causes the phenomenon we experience as gravity?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #28 on: April 13, 2016, 05:14:41 AM »
I I Understood correctly, the assumption is that the gravity is actually an illusion
It is both illusion and fiction.  There is no force of gravity. 

and actually Earth is being pushed by a dark matter at the rate of 9.8 meters per second hence generating the illusion of everything being pushed down.
Incorrect.  The earth is not moving nor is it being pusshed up at 9.8 meters per second. 




The apple falls down to the ground because it is more dense than air. 
The apple floats on water because it is less dense than water but more dense than air. 

Less dense matter rises to the top of more dense matter because there is nowhere else to go.
But what about
Quote
Universal Acceleration

Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!

Don't you ever wonder what all those blokes from old Henry Cavendish right up to the present day measured?
What they did was to measur the Universal Gravitational Constant - that directly measure gravitation!
And it's really a tough sort of experiment to get right, since gravitation is so incredibly weak.

Cavendish might have been an odd sort of bloke, but he was a wizard at doing measurents and got to within 1% of the modern value of "G".
After all that evidence that gravitation is real and measurable, you can come along with absolutely no evidence at all and deny the lot.

Now I can guess the reaction to this. But I'll answer that when it comes.

Seems a tad unreasonable to me!


Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2016, 02:27:11 AM »
But what about
Quote
Universal Acceleration
Shoddy controlled opposition. 



Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!
You reveal too much. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2016, 08:11:29 AM »
But what about
Quote
Universal Acceleration
Shoddy controlled opposition. 

Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!
You reveal too much.
So TFES is Shoddy controlled opposition? Just what would Junker think?
"You reveal too much." about what? You've got me mystified!

By the way how does your "denspressure theory" (or whatever you call it) know what direction to call "down"?  Know something, we call that gravity!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2016, 08:23:45 AM by rabinoz »

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2016, 03:47:23 PM »
Ironic that Flat Earthers will openly, actively, vehemently deny science because they can't see it with their own eyes yet they will rely upon science that they absolutely can't see (special relativity) with their own eyes to attempt to bolster and support their fantasy of what they want the world to be.

What is the frame of reference FES uses to determine the acceleration of the Earth?

Since, as has been stated, velocity/acceleration are meaningless without a frame of reference how did FES come to the conclusion that the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 and this constant acceleration is what causes the phenomenon we experience as gravity?

We need to be careful when talking about relative acceleration in terms of special relativity. The reason it is called "special" is because it deals with the "special" case of assuming no acceleration. Hence, stuff like the twins' paradox.

The earth's frame of reference is used to determine the earth's acceleration. Just because we can't measure our own velocity without an outside frame of reference doesn't mean we can't measure our own acceleration. How do we measure it? Simple: hold a ball in the air and drop it. What happens? It accelerates down at 9.8m/s2. This is easy to measure. Based on this, we can conclude one of 2 things:

1. Our reference frame is accelerating upwards. (Universal Acceleration)
2. The ball is experiencing a downwards force. (gravity)

Since flat-earthers discount the idea of gravity, they choose option 1.

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2016, 04:19:18 PM »

Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!


He obviously disagrees with the wiki. This is the type of comment that causes a thread to dissolve into an incomprehensible shouting match, fyi. Please don't.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2016, 03:26:16 AM »
The earth's frame of reference is used to determine the earth's acceleration. Just because we can't measure our own velocity without an outside frame of reference doesn't mean we can't measure our own acceleration. How do we measure it? Simple: hold a ball in the air and drop it. What happens? It accelerates down at 9.8m/s2. This is easy to measure. Based on this, we can conclude one of 2 things:

1. Our reference frame is accelerating upwards. (Universal Acceleration)
2. The ball is experiencing a downwards force. (gravity)

Since flat-earthers discount the idea of gravity, they choose option 1.
I (and others) have tried to point out many times that Universal Acceleration has to be just that "Universal" - all of earth must accelerate at the same rate around 9.8 m/s2.
But, as has been know from before Newton's time the acceleration due to gravitation on the earth ("g") is not a fixed value but varies quite significantly with latitude, altitude and, to a much lesser extent, the proximity of massive ore bodies.

 I said a bit more on this in Proof of a round earth: Himawari 8 Satellite Images « Reply #77 on: March 04, 2016, 04:49:57 AM » on the "other site".

The Wiki does have some hypotheses for the cause of these variations, but to me they simply do not "hold water".
For me this simply proves that UA is not an adequate explanation for gravity.
But you are certainly correct in asserting that the Globe completely relies on gravitation.

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2016, 11:35:15 AM »
Quote
The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.

What is causing the plane to accelerate upwards with the earth?

Good question! Lift. Stick your hand out the car window while driving fast. Palm facing down, fingers together. Now rotate your hand so that your palm is slightly facing forwards. Did you feel your hand pushing upwards? Congratulations, your hand just generated lift like an airplane wing!

Quote
Why does this force not apply to Bob when he steps off the plane?

Bob doesn't have wings.

The plane is airborne because of lift.  Lift doesn't account for upward acceleration.  In fact, angle of attack accounts for upward, downward or level flight in a plane.  Either way the plane has to be moving forward for lift to work and even forward movement isn't enough to guarantee proper lift if the angle of attack is wrong.

Since you've narrowed the difference between Bob and the plane down to wings being the deciding factor, if a plane stops all forward motion why does it fall from the sky?  If the angle of attack is incorrect why does it fall from the sky?

It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion.  Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 11:37:46 AM by CableDawg »

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2016, 02:58:49 PM »
The plane is airborne because of lift.  Lift doesn't account for upward acceleration. 

Yes, it does. In general, there are four forces acting on a plane:
  • Lift (up): generated mostly by the wings. The fuselage and engine can contribute a small amount to this depending on the shape of the plane and the angle of attack.
  • Weight (down): generated by gravity (or Universal Acceleration, if you are a flat-earther)
  • Thrust (forward): generated by the engines.
  • Drag (backward): generated by air resistance.

For straight and level flight, these four forces must be balanced. Lift=Weight, Thrust=Drag.

If Lift is greater than weight, the plane accelerates upward. If Lift is less than weight, it accelerates downward. If Thrust is greater than drag, then the plane accelerates forward. If Thrust is less than drag, the plane slows down.

Quote
In fact, angle of attack accounts for upward, downward or level flight in a plane.

Yes, changing the angle of attack can change the amount of lift generated by the wings, causing the plane to accelerate up or down. Lift is approximately proportional to the angle of attack.

Quote
Either way the plane has to be moving forward for lift to work and even forward movement isn't enough to guarantee proper lift if the angle of attack is wrong.

Yes, the wings only generate lift if the plane is moving forward. Lift is approximately proportional to the speed of the plane squared.

Quote
Since you've narrowed the difference between Bob and the plane down to wings being the deciding factor, if a plane stops all forward motion why does it fall from the sky?  If the angle of attack is incorrect why does it fall from the sky?

Yes, wings aren't the only deciding factor. Bob would also need to be able to generate some thrust, either with an engine or by flapping really hard. I thought this was rather obvious, sorry.

Quote
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion.  Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?

There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.

I guess you were under the assumption that I thought wings by themselves were enough to generate lift. Obviously, the plane must be moving forward at a sufficient speed and have the correct angle of attack for the wings to actually generate lift.

The plane has sufficient airspeed to allow the wings to generate lift. Bob doesn't have wings (for lift) or an engine (for thrust to maintain airspeed to generate lift). Hence, Bob falls when he steps off the plane.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 03:08:17 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2016, 04:29:54 PM »
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion.  Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?

There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.

The 'magical force' he refers to is not lift, it is Universal Acceleration.  As in: If UA really is Universal, why does the airplane NOT experience UA while airborne?  Why do I not experience UA while standing on the earth?  Shouldn't I be accelerating upward at the same 9.8 m/s2 as the earth is, and thus NOT feel gravity?  Why is it only the flat earth that gets accelerated?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2016, 05:31:01 PM »
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion.  Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?

There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.

The 'magical force' he refers to is not lift, it is Universal Acceleration.  As in: If UA really is Universal, why does the airplane NOT experience UA while airborne?  Why do I not experience UA while standing on the earth?  Shouldn't I be accelerating upward at the same 9.8 m/s2 as the earth is, and thus NOT feel gravity?  Why is it only the flat earth that gets accelerated?

No, he is definitely referring to lift, although he might not know it himself.

Assuming UA is true*:

You do experience UA while standing on the ground. Like you said: you are being accelerated upward, pushed by the earth, at the same rate as the earth (9.8m/s2). This provides the exact same sensation of weight as gravity. Have you ever heard of someone in a race car or fighter jet experiencing a certain amount of "G's"? Two G's means they are experiencing an acceleration that feels like twice that of gravity (19.6m/s2).

The same applies to the airplane accelerating up with the earth. The only difference is that instead of being directly pushed (accelerated) up by the earth, it is being pushed (accelerated) up by lift from the wings.

When poor Bob steps out of the plane, he is no longer being pushed up by the earth or by the lift from the plane. Therefore, he is no longer being accelerated up along with the earth. Therefore, he accelerates down towards the earth (or the earth accelerates up towards him, depending on your perspective).

* I don't actually believe UA to be true. There are plenty of other ways to disprove it.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2016, 05:31:10 AM »
No, you see, if UA were truly UNIVERSAL then it would accelerate me even when I am no longer in contact with the earth, as it apparently accelerates the moon and sun and all the other not-attached-to-earth celestial objects we never catch up to.  But it does no such thing.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2016, 06:31:22 AM »
It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion.  Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?

There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.

The 'magical force' he refers to is not lift, it is Universal Acceleration.  As in: If UA really is Universal, why does the airplane NOT experience UA while airborne?  Why do I not experience UA while standing on the earth?  Shouldn't I be accelerating upward at the same 9.8 m/s2 as the earth is, and thus NOT feel gravity?  Why is it only the flat earth that gets accelerated?

No, he is definitely referring to lift, although he might not know it himself.

Assuming UA is true*:

You do experience UA while standing on the ground. Like you said: you are being accelerated upward, pushed by the earth, at the same rate as the earth (9.8m/s2). This provides the exact same sensation of weight as gravity. Have you ever heard of someone in a race car or fighter jet experiencing a certain amount of "G's"? Two G's means they are experiencing an acceleration that feels like twice that of gravity (19.6m/s2).

The same applies to the airplane accelerating up with the earth. The only difference is that instead of being directly pushed (accelerated) up by the earth, it is being pushed (accelerated) up by lift from the wings.

When poor Bob steps out of the plane, he is no longer being pushed up by the earth or by the lift from the plane. Therefore, he is no longer being accelerated up along with the earth. Therefore, he accelerates down towards the earth (or the earth accelerates up towards him, depending on your perspective).

* I don't actually believe UA to be true. There are plenty of other ways to disprove it.

No.  I'm definitely not referring to lift.  You're concentrating on lift at the expense of the magical force that somehow gives us the perspective of gravity.

If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it.  This displacement of air should cause some measureable effect on a body, any body, within the realm of displacement.  This concept is readily seen in a vertical wind tunnel, the type any person can pay money to get into to approximate the experience of skydiving.  You contend that, because we don't have wings, humans are doomed to free fall through air.  Yet I can step into a vertical wind tunnel, with no special apparatus, and experience a situation in which I am not freely falling through air, simply through the interaction of displaced air acting on the surface area of my body.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 06:34:20 AM by CableDawg »