Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The point i was trying to make earlier is that you can think of a flat earth like a round earth when it comes to magnetism.... The magnetic field lines of each model lie along the axis of rotation.
The problem is that it can't be the same as round Earth, because in RE, it's cause by phenomenon that only apply to RE. Things like the Coriolis effect occurring throughout the entire planet, if at all. The RE explanation isn't applicable with FE, because as far as I can tell the Coriolis effect isn't even a thing in (this chapter of) FE theory.
Earth's magnetic field is generated by what is known as the geodynamo process. According to National Geographic(opens in new tab), for a planet to generate its own magnetic field by the geodynamo process, it must have the following characteristics:
The planet rotates fast enough
Its interior must have a fluid medium
The interior fluid must have the ability to conduct electricity
The core must have an internal source of energy that propels convection currents in the liquid interior
I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.
That's interesting. Is there any way this has been or can be demonstrated as it would be interesting to watch something like this happen?
“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.” (Einstein)(37)
This law is supposed to hold with great accuracy. The velocity of the fall is generally explored with the help of a pendulum; it appears to us that a charged object must fall with a different velocity than a neutral object. This is generally denied. But the denial is based on the observation that there is no difference in the number of swings of a pendulum in a unit of time, in the case where a charged or neutral bob is used. This method may produce inaccurate results. In an accurate method, the falling time and the time of ascent of the pendulum must be measured separately. In the case of a charged body, the increase in the velocity of descent of the pendulum may be accompanied by a decrease in the velocity of ascent, and thus the number of swings in a unit of time would remain the same for charged and non-charged bobs.
In a charged body the attracting and the inertial properties are not equal
I may have misinterpreted this but are you suggesting the earth is a sphere or have I misread this?
One thing that he did do, though, was suggest that gravity was not what it seemed to be and what we perceive as such is actually just electromagnetism.
I read up a bit.
Then flashed of college physics comes to mind and I remember how much I hated frame of reference in Relativity....
If I fire a photon at a wall, it hits it, is absorbed, and emits another photon.
How can I see that first photon after it was absorbed? Its gone. So it either exists in the past in such a way as to physically exist for me to interact with after its gone or I need to un-emit the photon.
The difference is that I see a lightning strike's effects (photons) as they travel. Their incremental changes in position. So frame of reference is just where I am when the photons hit my eyes.
Because if an alien from 2022 can travel to 1804, while I, who stay in 2022, exist, then there must be two copies of the universe. One in 1804, one in 2022. Or at least the information of its configuration must be such that it can be reconfigured once you are in 1804 to be that time.
Perhaps the problem is I don't understand "blocktime" because right now its sounding like every event exists all at once and you can do things like move from the future to the past and have all the matter and energy in the past configuration without affecting anyone in the now. Which implies that either the universe has copies, or I reversed all the entropy in the universe to a specific point.
According to the bread analogy, if an alien 10 billion lightyears away walks away from the Earth, he's suddenly in the same slice of time as Behtoven. AKA 1804.
Lets say this alien can teleport or make a wormhole to move between two points in space instantly.
By this analogy, if he were to be walking away from the Earth then teleport to the earth, he'd be in 1804 instead of 2022.
This tells me that every single state of the universe from the big bang to the end exists, physically, like a moviestrip. Every single moment in time has an exact copy of the entire universe, ready for someone to just walk into it.
That's absolute nonsense.
Time dialation changes your perception of the flow of time around you, not make you magically in the past if you look far away.
Mathematically, it may work, but math doesn't always translate to reality. (See -1)
It also strongly implies that an entire copy of the universe exists in every moment in time. Which would require infinite matter and energy to do.
This isn't a correct understanding of relativity. It requires that you somehow know what two observers in two different frames are observing simultaneously (which simply isn't possible!). You can always state that two observers will observe radically different 'now' realities, but those two 'now' realities are always happening 'now' to the observer. Put another way: you cannot observe a time that is not 'now' in your own frame.
BRIAN GREENE: And if that's not strange enough, the direction you move makes a difference, too. Watch what happens when the alien turns around and bikes toward Earth. The alien's new "now slice" is angled to…toward the future, and so it includes events that won't happen on Earth for 200 years: perhaps our friend's great-great-great granddaughter teleporting from Paris to New York.MAX TEGMARK: The past is not gone, and the future isn't non-existent. The past, the future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way.[/quote]
Once we know that your now can be what I consider the past, or your now can be what I consider the future, and your now is every bit as valid as my now, then we learn that the past must be real, the future must be real. They could be your now. That means past, present, future…all equally real; they all exist.
SEAN CARROLL: If you believe the laws of physics, there's just as much reality to the future and the past as there is to the present moment.
It doesn't change anything. Time dialation does not alter space or create space. Things just go slower or faster, depending on your frame of reference.
Your 'now' is still the same, just moves slower. And doesn't require the universe to exist in the past or future
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?