*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2021, 07:07:09 PM »
Quote
Incorrect. It doesn't say that the scenario on the left hand side of the image is caused by Special Relativity or "spacetime bending". It clearly says that it occurs simply because the rocket is accelerating into the photons, causing time of the clock to appear to speed up.

IOW, it describes exactly what we’d expect to see if spacetime was warped by acceleration. Accelerating objects and differences in time.

You can’t always expect things to be explicitly stated and handed to you on a silver platter.  Sometimes you have to draw logical conclusions from the evidence.  If you came home with trash strewn about and last night’s leftovers all over the dog’s face, what conclusion would you draw? 

The fact that the clocks show two different times while accelerating is evidence that spacetime is warped...because that is exactly what we expect to happen if spacetime is warped...accelerating objects showing different times.

If you don’t think that is the logical conclusion, why not?

@action80...I’ll have to get back to you later.  Tom’s comment was easier to respond to and I want to think about how I respond to you so I don’t cause any confusion. Maybe later this evening.

You are just saying "draw a logical conclusion." It is not logical that we must assume this to explain the effect. Why invoke a hidden untestable layer of reality when the effect can be described elsewise?

If SR and space bending did not exist and this rocket scenario was occurring in the pre-relativity concept of corporeal space, would this time dilation effect occur?

A clock on the ceiling of the rocket is ticking and broadcasting a line of photons at a rate of one per second (or whatever rate). Would accelerating into that line of photons cause them to seem to speed up to the observer?

Yes or No?

If yes, then there is no reason to invoke bending spacetime to explain it. If no, then why not?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2021, 07:17:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2021, 07:27:39 PM »
Quote
If SR and space bending did not exist and this rocket scenario was occurring in the pre-relativity concept of corporeal space, would this time dilation effect occur?

A clock on the ceiling of the rocket is ticking and broadcasting a line of photons at a rate of one per second (or whatever rate). Would accelerating into that line of photons cause them to seem to speed up to the observer like in the analogy?

Yes or No?

Of course. If SR hadn't been developed yet, we just wouldn't understand why.

Experiments like this were designed to confirm SR.  Prior to SR they weren't the type of experiments anybody had a reason to do.  SR predicted time dilation and so scientists figured out ways to make objects accelerate relative to one another and measure time to see if there was any differences.

And there were differences.  Just like SR predicted. And not just any differences, but exactly the differences you would expect based on the math of curved space time.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2021, 07:29:59 PM »
No. I am invoking a universe where SR and spacetime bending does not exist. Spacetime warping is impossible in this universe, because it is nonexistent, like the pre-relativistic concept of space.

In this space, would accelerating into a line of photons that are emitted one second apart cause them to seem to appear to arrive in a shorter time span than one second apart from each other, or not?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2021, 08:30:29 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2021, 08:40:49 PM »
Quote
No. I am invoking a universe where SR and spacetime bending does not exist. Spacetime warping is impossible in this universe, because it is nonexistent, like the pre-relativistic concept of space.

In this space, would accelerating into a line of photons that are emitted one second apart cause them to seem to appear to arrive in a shorter time span than one second apart from each other, or not?

Your question makes no sense. What you are asking is essentially, if it didn't exist, would it still exist?

Just because we weren't aware of spacetime warping in "pre-relativistic" time, doesn't mean it didn't exist. There has been no time in history when that experiment could have been conducted and not have the same result.  Pre SR, we wouldn't have had an explanation for it, but the result would have been the same.

By your logic a compass wouldn't have worked until we figured out electromagnetism.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2021, 12:51:20 AM »
So you won't consider a scenario in Newtonian space, and proclaim that you won't consider it because it doesn't exist? Sounds like avoidance to me.

It is clear from these types of responses that you know that this would work, and are trying to avoid admitting that.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2021, 01:14:44 AM »
So you won't consider a scenario in Newtonian space, and proclaim that you won't consider it because it doesn't exist? Sounds like avoidance to me.

It is clear from these types of responses that you know that this would work, and are trying to avoid admitting that.

Its clear from your question that you are very confused.  Space time warp existed in Newtonian space. Just because nobody was aware of doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I gave as direct answer as possible given the illogical premise of the question.  What part of "At no time in history would this experiment have different results" don't you understand?"

If the ancient Greeks had some reason to do it and figured how to do it using pebbles and sundials, they would have gotten the same results.  They would have been surprised and confused.  Modern scientists were not surprised (except maybe by the fact that they correctly predicted it) or confused because it was what they thought would happen.

Effects can exist and be observed without understanding the cause.


Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2021, 01:22:10 AM »
Quote
I have a question concerning your explanation.

Specifically, the issue of acceleration and relative velocity of two observers.

Are you supposing 1)the acceleration; and, 2) relative velocity: of the two observers is the same in this scenario?

I didn't mean to blow you off earlier, but at first I didn't understand your question.  Then I realized I had been sloppily using the word acceleration to mean motion. Shame on me.  :'(

Anyway, SR deals only with inertial motion, not acceleration in its strict sense.  So no, the acceleration of the two objects can't be different because neither is accelerating.

Their velocities can be different though.  They can be moving at different constant speeds in different straight line directions.  The greater the difference in their velocities', the greater the time and space difference will be.

Does that answer your question?

EDIT: To clarify,  they must be moving in different straight lines and different constant speeds.  Otherwise the aren't moving relative to one another and the concept only applies to objects that are moving relative to one another.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2021, 01:57:03 AM by fisherman »

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2021, 06:00:47 PM »
Ever since finding this site, I have had this nagging thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the logic behind relying on the equivalence principle to justify UA, but couldn’t  quite put my finger on it.

I wasn’t thinking about people falling off a roof, but it finally dawned on me.  Special Relativity tells us that accelerated motion warps spacetime. The faster you go, the slower time moves and objects will contract.  The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable.  The logical conclusion then is that gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Instead, the UA crowd concludes that the EP means there is some mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (and maybe, but maybe not, everything else.) upwards. 

I couldn’t find anything in the wiki that justifies this leap (no pun intended) in logic. Maybe if you took SR out of the equation, it would make some sense but that creates even more problems for UA.  Not to mention the fact that part of what makes the EP so important is that it serves a bridge between SR and GR so that SR is consistent with gravity.

Why should UA be considered a better theory for gravity when it doesn’t even logically follow from the very premise it is based on?  Not to mention the fact that it leaves so many questions unanswered that GR very elegantly solves.

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2021, 07:29:45 PM »
Quote from: fisherman
Its clear from your question that you are very confused.  Space time warp existed in Newtonian space. Just because nobody was aware of doesn't mean it didn't exist.

This has nothing to do with a requirement of bending spacetime to make this happen.

You are in a long spacecraft under zero gravity. A line of water droplets is traveling from one end of the spaceship towards you, hitting you at a rate of 1 drop per second:



You then accelerate towards the drops. Will you experience the water droplets hitting you at a rate quicker than 1 drop per second? Yes or No?



This scenario has nothing to do with bending spacetime.

This scenario has nothing to do with Einstein's theories.

This scenario replaces photons with water droplets. Will they hit you at a rate quicker than 1 drop per second when you accelerate into them? YES OR NO?

Please, let us all hear you avoid directly answering the logical question poised above again.

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

We already know from human experience that it is possible for things to be pushed without flipping. I am sure that you can think of ways for it to happen on your own.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2021, 08:47:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2021, 09:09:22 PM »

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

We already know from human experience that it is possible for things to be pushed without flipping. I am sure that you can think of ways for it to happen on your own.

That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2021, 09:13:28 PM »
I just though of an experiment. Go to an indoor sky-diving dome where huge fans blow air upward. Take something flat and heavy enough for it to be held up by the blowing air. Try to stop it from flipping if it's not 100% symmetrical with even weight distribution (Hint: Take lots of money - you'll be there for a while.)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2021, 09:17:17 PM »
That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Upwards acceleration is acknowledged to be identical to 'gravitation'. So a calm lake is perpetually pushing up a boat at 9.8 m/s/s as well. The mass distribution of a boat isn't evenly distributed, and the atoms of the water aren't perfectly distributed beneath the boat either. Yet boats and ships aren't flipping around on the water. Why is that?

As said, there are clearly ways that this can occur.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2021, 10:10:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2021, 10:10:08 PM »
Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2021, 11:11:24 PM »
That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Upwards acceleration is acknowledged to be identical to 'gravitation'. So a calm lake is perpetually pushing up a boat at 9.8 m/s/s as well. The mass distribution of a boat isn't evenly distributed, and the atoms of the water aren't perfectly distributed beneath the boat either. Yet boats and ships aren't flipping around on the water. Why is that?

Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Now, back to flat things, which you did your level best to avoid talking about  (Heh, heh. Level best. See what I did there?). Stand on an SUP (stand-up-paddleboard) in the middle. If you're new at it, you'll tip it because your weight will go off center before you know it. Even if you're good at it you have to stay perfectly centered to keep it from tipping.

It's obvious that you're just making these "answers" up as you go along, as the absurdity of your "rebuttal" demonstrates. I'm guessing you've never had this question before and that you're scrambling to come up with an newly invented force by way of explanation.  Oh, btw, water IS evenly distributed. Are you seriously suggesting there are "clumps" of water???

I have a suggestion. Since UA can be anything you want it to be, why not expand on it and turn it into AUA? That stands for Adaptive Universal Acceleration. When UA is pushing under the Marianas Trench (all that water has to weigh more than shallower oceans), UA "ADAPTS" to account for the extra load and applies more force where needed. Yeah, THAT's the ticket.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2021, 11:15:55 PM »
Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 890
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2021, 11:17:07 PM »
The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2021, 11:30:47 PM »
Quote from: stevecanuck
Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Have you ever been on a large cruise ship?



Cruiseships are pretty stable. You aren't going to be able to walk to one side and cause the cruise ship to flip over. The larger the ship, the more stable it seems to be in response to waves and currents and irregularities like people walking around on it.

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Not really. If you tied the rope to a different part of the handle other than the exact middle the water in the bucket would still be flat in relation to the center of rotation. The bucket would just be crooked and have a new center of mass.

A more realistic version might be a giant porous rock or natural object spinning around in space, with the flat ocean in one of the cavities at one side of the object, where water is flattened out away from the center of rotation due to the 1g centripetal force. It doesn't have to be a bucket and a rope.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2021, 11:56:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2021, 12:03:29 AM »

Quote
Please, let us all hear you avoid directly answering the logical question poised above again.
.

No, they would not hit you at one drop per second.  The rate would depend on how fast you are moving toward the droplets.  And whatever the rate is, according your clock, it would be different according to a clock traveling with the water droplets.  Also, the water droplets would be length contracted.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #38 on: April 11, 2021, 01:10:33 AM »
Quote from: stevecanuck
Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Have you ever been on a large cruise ship?



Cruiseships are pretty stable. You aren't going to be able to walk to one side and cause the cruise ship to flip over. The larger the ship, the more stable it seems to be in response to waves and currents and irregularities like people walking around on it.

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Not really. If you tied the rope to a different part of the handle other than the exact middle the water in the bucket would still be flat in relation to the center of rotation. The bucket would just be crooked and have a new center of mass.

A more realistic version might be a giant porous rock or natural object spinning around in space, with the flat ocean in one of the cavities at one side of the object, where water is flattened out away from the center of rotation due to the 1g centripetal force. It doesn't have to be a bucket and a rope.

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

Re: My Happiest Thought
« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2021, 01:12:50 AM »
The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth

Nothing that anyone has said changes the fact that a disk that does not have even weight distribution will tilt. Think of a beer tray.