you suggest that the flat Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s^2. Surely, if that were the case, the acceleration measured at any point on the planet would be exactly the same.
Hello everyone.Junker advises us
I have a question for you all. I've been through the FAQ and, although the concept of gravity is discussed, I couldn't see any reference to this particular point.
Imagine that you're travelling around with an accurate accelerometer (a device which measures acceleration). At various places you stop and take a measurement, and after a while start to notice that these measurements differ from each other by a small amount. This shows that the strength of gravity is different at different places on the planet.
In classical physics this is well documented and can be explained by a number of different phenomena. For example, according to Newton's law of gravitation [F=G(Mm)/r^2] if you are at the top of a mountain, gravity should be slightly weaker than if you were at sea level. Also, the non-uniform mass density of the planet can account for some considerable variation, even if measurements are taken at the same altitude. In fact, the measurement you take can vary by as much as 0.7% from place to place.
Now, as I understand it (and do please correct me if I've got the wrong idea) you suggest that the flat Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s^2. Surely, if that were the case, the acceleration measured at any point on the planet would be exactly the same.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please note, I'm not here as a troll, I just find the whole topic fascinating.
Thanks!
F
Why doesn't gravity pull the earth into a spherical shape?
The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.
There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.
Tidal Effects
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Hello everyone.
I have a question for you all. I've been through the FAQ and, although the concept of gravity is discussed, I couldn't see any reference to this particular point.
Imagine that you're travelling around with an accurate accelerometer (a device which measures acceleration). At various places you stop and take a measurement, and after a while start to notice that these measurements differ from each other by a small amount. This shows that the strength of gravity is different at different places on the planet.
In classical physics this is well documented and can be explained by a number of different phenomena. For example, according to Newton's law of gravitation [F=G(Mm)/r^2] if you are at the top of a mountain, gravity should be slightly weaker than if you were at sea level. Also, the non-uniform mass density of the planet can account for some considerable variation, even if measurements are taken at the same altitude. In fact, the measurement you take can vary by as much as 0.7% from place to place.
Now, as I understand it (and do please correct me if I've got the wrong idea) you suggest that the flat Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s^2. Surely, if that were the case, the acceleration measured at any point on the planet would be exactly the same.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please note, I'm not here as a troll, I just find the whole topic fascinating.
Thanks!
F
You are incorrect in your understanding of the role of atmospheric pressure and the measured weight of a object. An object of constant density and volume will weigh more when the air pressure decreases. The phenomenon is known as air buoyancy. There are correction formulas established to accommodate for this effect when doing mass calibrations. The less dense the object is the more pronounced the weight increase will be as elevation increases.Hello everyone.
I have a question for you all. I've been through the FAQ and, although the concept of gravity is discussed, I couldn't see any reference to this particular point.
Imagine that you're travelling around with an accurate accelerometer (a device which measures acceleration). At various places you stop and take a measurement, and after a while start to notice that these measurements differ from each other by a small amount. This shows that the strength of gravity is different at different places on the planet.
In classical physics this is well documented and can be explained by a number of different phenomena. For example, according to Newton's law of gravitation [F=G(Mm)/r^2] if you are at the top of a mountain, gravity should be slightly weaker than if you were at sea level. Also, the non-uniform mass density of the planet can account for some considerable variation, even if measurements are taken at the same altitude. In fact, the measurement you take can vary by as much as 0.7% from place to place.
Now, as I understand it (and do please correct me if I've got the wrong idea) you suggest that the flat Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s^2. Surely, if that were the case, the acceleration measured at any point on the planet would be exactly the same.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please note, I'm not here as a troll, I just find the whole topic fascinating.
Thanks!
F
Hello.
Firstly, the earth is stationary and doesn't move to anywhere. That knowledge is "old theory" and debunked several times, also by ourselves.
Most part believers accept the "gravity effect" as caused by atmospheric stringency. You may think it as atmospheric pressure. They are not same by phsically but are about same as effective.
In nature, everything pushes others, including atmospher. So when you are on a mountain, there is less atmospher upper side of you and so, it causes less force to down you. So the gravity is less.
In ground level, the atmospher on your upper side is more than the mountain level, so the gravity effect increases. Thats all.
You can explain every type of gravity effects by changing the atmospheric weight/or hight which effect to the object.
PS: I'm an engineer from 20 years.
You are incorrect in your understanding of the role of atmospheric pressure and the measured weight of a object. An object of constant density and volume will weigh more when the air pressure decreases. The phenomenon is known as air buoyancy. There are correction formulas established to accommodate for this effect when doing mass calibrations.Hello everyone.
I have a question for you all. I've been through the FAQ and, although the concept of gravity is discussed, I couldn't see any reference to this particular point.
Imagine that you're travelling around with an accurate accelerometer (a device which measures acceleration). At various places you stop and take a measurement, and after a while start to notice that these measurements differ from each other by a small amount. This shows that the strength of gravity is different at different places on the planet.
In classical physics this is well documented and can be explained by a number of different phenomena. For example, according to Newton's law of gravitation [F=G(Mm)/r^2] if you are at the top of a mountain, gravity should be slightly weaker than if you were at sea level. Also, the non-uniform mass density of the planet can account for some considerable variation, even if measurements are taken at the same altitude. In fact, the measurement you take can vary by as much as 0.7% from place to place.
Now, as I understand it (and do please correct me if I've got the wrong idea) you suggest that the flat Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s^2. Surely, if that were the case, the acceleration measured at any point on the planet would be exactly the same.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please note, I'm not here as a troll, I just find the whole topic fascinating.
Thanks!
F
Hello.
Firstly, the earth is stationary and doesn't move to anywhere. That knowledge is "old theory" and debunked several times, also by ourselves.
Most part believers accept the "gravity effect" as caused by atmospheric stringency. You may think it as atmospheric pressure. They are not same by phsically but are about same as effective.
In nature, everything pushes others, including atmospher. So when you are on a mountain, there is less atmospher upper side of you and so, it causes less force to down you. So the gravity is less.
In ground level, the atmospher on your upper side is more than the mountain level, so the gravity effect increases. Thats all.
You can explain every type of gravity effects by changing the atmospheric weight/or hight which effect to the object.
PS: I'm an engineer from 20 years.
http://metrology.burtini.ca/grav_air.html
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/how-do-i-calculate-and-apply-air-buoyancy-corrections-(faq-mass-and-density)
https://youtu.be/ZrC8rKNufMI
Searching "the Wiki" for "gravity" leads to: Universal Acceleration (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration) where this is particularly relevant to your queryQuoteTidal Effects
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
I still query:
- How the "gravitation" can exist between "other celestial bodies" and objects on earth
and not between the massive earth and objects on earth.- What explains the variation of gravity with latitude, north and south of the equator.
- How Einstein's Special Relativity can be accepted,
but not General Relativity, which reduces to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
Most part believers accept the "gravity effect" as caused by atmospheric stringency.
An object of constant density and volume will weigh more when the air pressure decreases. The phenomenon is known as air buoyancy. There are correction formulas established to accommodate for this effect when doing mass calibrations. The less dense the object is the more pronounced the weight increase will be as elevation increases.
You are already an anti flat earth fascist. You have none of reliablity.
Hello everyone.
I have a question for you all. I've been through the FAQ and, although the concept of gravity is discussed, I couldn't see any reference to this particular point.
Imagine that you're travelling around with an accurate accelerometer (a device which measures acceleration). At various places you stop and take a measurement, and after a while start to notice that these measurements differ from each other by a small amount. This shows that the strength of gravity is different at different places on the planet.
In classical physics this is well documented and can be explained by a number of different phenomena. For example, according to Newton's law of gravitation [F=G(Mm)/r^2] if you are at the top of a mountain, gravity should be slightly weaker than if you were at sea level. Also, the non-uniform mass density of the planet can account for some considerable variation, even if measurements are taken at the same altitude. In fact, the measurement you take can vary by as much as 0.7% from place to place.
Now, as I understand it (and do please correct me if I've got the wrong idea) you suggest that the flat Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s^2. Surely, if that were the case, the acceleration measured at any point on the planet would be exactly the same.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Please note, I'm not here as a troll, I just find the whole topic fascinating.
Thanks!
F
Hello.
Firstly, the earth is stationary and doesn't move to anywhere. That knowledge is "old theory" and debunked several times, also by ourselves.
Most part believers accept the "gravity effect" as caused by atmospheric stringency. You may think it as atmospheric pressure. They are not same by phsically but are about same as effective.
In nature, everything pushes others, including atmospher. So when you are on a mountain, there is less atmospher upper side of you and so, it causes less force to down you. So the gravity is less.
In ground level, the atmospher on your upper side is more than the mountain level, so the gravity effect increases. Thats all.
You can explain every type of gravity effects by changing the atmospheric weight/or hight which effect to the object.
PS: I'm an engineer from 20 years.
The effects of gravity are also different when objects are in motion going east vs West and in motion at different latitudes.
When traveling east your total velocity (velocity plus earth spin) is greater than when traveling due west (earth spin minus velocity). The centripetal acceleration is greater when traveling east resulting in lower measured weight. It's called the Eotvos Effect.The effects of gravity are also different when objects are in motion going east vs West and in motion at different latitudes.
Oh!? That's odd. What is the cause and effect of that one?
When traveling east your total velocity (velocity plus earth spin) is greater than when traveling due west (earth spin minus velocity). The centripetal acceleration is greater when traveling east resulting in lower measured weight. It's called the Eotvos Effect.
http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/eotvos.php
I still query:You assume without evidence that there is a correlation between mass and gravitational pull.
- How the "gravitation" can exist between "other celestial bodies" and objects on earth
and not between the massive earth and objects on earth.
Given that the two are entirely separate, I don't see why you would necessarily expect anyone to either accept or reject both. It's like saying that all vegetarians must be left-wingers.
- How Einstein's Special Relativity can be accepted,
but not General Relativity, which reduces to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
You assume that science just makes stuff up. We have been doing measured mass attraction experiments since the mid 1800's. Our present understanding of gravity and mass were derived from those experiments.I still query:You assume without evidence that there is a correlation between mass and gravitational pull.
- How the "gravitation" can exist between "other celestial bodies" and objects on earth
and not between the massive earth and objects on earth.
According to RE physics, they should take hours to collide. The fact that it happens rapidly proves that this isn't the case.
I am correct and your post is completely an hoax. You are already an anti flat earth fascist. You have none of reliablity.
I see this thread followed the usual "story arc" on here,
Some wild, baseless FE assertions with no evidence provided
Some explanations from RE
FE claiming there is no evidence for those explanations
RE posting some actual experiments demonstrating the explanations
FE either calling them fake or, in this instance, willfully misunderstanding them.
RE explaining them more clearly.
End of thread. No further rebuttals by FE or any conceding of ground by FE.
Rinse and repeat.
This is another experiment which can be easily repeated, if FE is about empiricism then why not have a go?
Given that the two are entirely separate, I don't see why you would necessarily expect anyone to either accept or reject both. It's like saying that all vegetarians must be left-wingers.
I am correct and your post is completely an hoax. You are already an anti flat earth fascist. You have none of reliablity.
The whole universal acceleration idea is a good example of who people come to wrong conclusion if they do not have a real understanding of the expression they using. This idea is based on the equivalence principle, that, in very simple words, says, that you cannot distinguish the effect of a gravitational field from that of a constant acceleration. But this was never supposed to be valid for the gravitational field of a whole planet. It is only valid for homogeneous gravitational field, but the field of a planet is not homogeneous it changes with the distance from the center of the planet. So you can find a certain non-inertial system for each point around the planet, but they're all different from each other depending on their distance from the center. There's no universal non-inertial system that includes the whole planet and everything above it, therefor there is no universal acceleration.
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...
Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/sThe problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...
From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
Just a comparison: if the Earth was propelled by rocket engines, then the least amount of fuel needed to maintain Earth gravity for the 6000 years since God allegedly created it would be around 102700 kilograms. Plus or minus a few dozen orders of magnitude.Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/sThe problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...
From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
I think you'll find that 102700 kilograms is exactly 1 metric shit-ton.Just a comparison: if the Earth was propelled by rocket engines, then the least amount of fuel needed to maintain Earth gravity for the 6000 years since God allegedly created it would be around 102700 kilograms. Plus or minus a few dozen orders of magnitude.Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/sThe problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...
From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)
I've seen Tom muttering about gravitons which are admittedly theoretical.(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)
Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?
I've seen Tom muttering about gravitons which are admittedly theoretical.(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)
Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?
I thought there were still some things not well understood about it but this is a bit above my level of understanding of physics tbh.
I thought there were still some things not well understood about it but this is a bit above my level of understanding of physics tbh.
I think you'll find that 102700 kilograms is exactly 1 metric shit-ton.Just a comparison: if the Earth was propelled by rocket engines, then the least amount of fuel needed to maintain Earth gravity for the 6000 years since God allegedly created it would be around 102700 kilograms. Plus or minus a few dozen orders of magnitude.Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/sThe problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...
From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
I rest my case.
I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood and yet quite happily accept that an INCREDIBLE amount of "dark energy" would have to be accelerating the earth upwards with no explanation as to how that might work and where all that energy is coming from.
The force argument for accelerating the Earth doesn't work because of what FE predicts: the physical effects of UA disappear as you get away from Earth. So essentially what they're posing (in an unnecessarily roundabout way) is that the force that pulls things to the Flat Earth's surface is magically there.
Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?
The fundamental problem with equivalence principle is, that it's only valid for homogeneous gravitational fields, which are equivalent to a constant acceleration. Real gravitational fields, i.e. fields originating in mass, are not homogeneous, and can only be replaced locally by an acceleration. The whole concept was introduced by Einstein to allow the use of special relativity at least on a local scale in a gravitational field before he invented the concept of general relativity.
Therefor inherently you have to come up with additional explanations outside the framework of general relativity if you want to use a concept like universal acceleration.
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
And, finally, it is not a god idea to use special relativity examples (constant velocity) to explain general relativity (constant acceleration) scenarios. It is misleading.
(..)
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
(...)
Macarios, as far as I know, the FE people believe that they have addressed the different perceived accelerations around the Earth.
Their idea, and I may be a little wrong on it, is that UA + "celestial gravitation" (a leaky patch without even the slightest of quantifications) combine to produce the effects of gravity on Earth. So that's what keeps the Earth in one piece. The variations in altitude are caused by a reduction of the "shielding" effect, and the variations in latitude are magically fixed by a specially-designed "celestial gravitation" force.
Acceleration at the top of Mount Everest is 9.77015 m/s2.
Acceleration in Tampa is 9.79736 m/s2.
(from: http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=e856809e0d522d3153e2e7e8ec263bf2)
Mount Everest is at 27.98 degrees north, at 8848 meters above sea level.
Tampa, FL is also 27.98 degrees north, at 1 meter above sea level.
Moving closer to the source of the celestial gravitation above Mount Everest for 8847 meters makes the acceleration lower 1.002812649 times.
It means the distance was changed SQRT(1.002812649) = 1.001405337 times. Let's call it k.
Since (D-1) = (D-8848)*k it makes D = (8848*k-1) / (k-1) = 6 304 135 m from the sea level (6 305 km).
This is consistent with height of the Sun to be 5005 km.
On North pole and on Ice Wall g is 9.832 m/s2,
Knowing that, we can calculate the distance from celestial source to be 6304135 * SQRT(9.832 / 9.79736) = 6 315 270 m.
6 315 270 - 6 304 135 = 11 135
It means the North pole and Ice Wall are both 11 135 meters below sea level.
It is somewhere around the bottom of Mariana Trench.
Ok, now we have another question here.
Since the "dome rotates" above the Earth's surface, whatever configuration it has, it must be circular, similar to vinyl record, or Fresnel lens.
For example, above Mount Everest must be the same distance regardless of the angle of the "dome" above the Earth.
Same goes for Aconcagua, Rocky Mountains, Appalachians, Alps, Carpathians, and the rest of the Earth's surface.
(..)
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
(...)
Well, due to relativity, it's a bit more complicated.
From the perspective of an outside observer, as the speed of the Earth would approach the speed of light its acceleration would signifantly decrease. Thus the force/the energy would "only" approach infinity.
However, from our perspective, the acceleration wouldn't change and neither would the mass/the force/the energy. The FES actually got this right.
Nevertheless, UA cannot explain the non-homogeneity, such as the Eötvös effect and so on.
(..)
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
(...)
Well, due to relativity, it's a bit more complicated.
From the perspective of an outside observer, as the speed of the Earth would approach the speed of light its acceleration would signifantly decrease. Thus the force/the energy would "only" approach infinity.
However, from our perspective, the acceleration wouldn't change and neither would the mass/the force/the energy. The FES actually got this right.
Nevertheless, UA cannot explain the non-homogeneity, such as the Eötvös effect and so on.
I think I already mentioned, that of course from the earths point of view, you would not notice the changes, but if you think about the plausibility of the whole concept of universal acceleration, you have to look from the reference frame in which you see the force acting on the earth. And an observer in that reference frame would see an almost infinite force acting on the earth. And that doesn't make any sense at all.
No one of them got it right, cause they're only looking at half of the story.
That would be like saying I don't care of the energy consumption of a big particle accelerator cause the particles don't feel their increase of mass. From the point of view of the accelerator the energy consumption is real. The same is true from the point of view of whatever is pushing the earth...