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.

Messages - Knickknack

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?
« on: December 09, 2022, 04:46:20 PM »
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.

And in both cases, the magnetic field lines would result in matter being compressed into roughly a sphere shape.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?
« on: December 08, 2022, 09:01:12 AM »
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.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

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?

Have we ever watched the a planet being created in real time?  I doubt it, that would take thousands of years.

So I read some of his stuff last night. He's got quite the imagination and doesn't seem to know the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates.  No, that isn't a joke or sarcasm.

I don't know about all flat earth followers, but I don't think you could ever reconcile his beliefs with what is posted on the wiki for this site.  He dismisses the idea that all bodies fall at the same rate in a vacuum regardless of their makeup and that's pretty central to how FET is explained in the wiki. Its also been settled science since Galileo that they do.

“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?

I am saying that if magnetism creates the same effect as gravity, then magnetism would eventually cause the earth to collapse into a sphere...because that is the effect of gravity.  Any large enough mass will eventually collapse into a sphere due to their own gravity.

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 think you'd have to start with explaining why electromagnetism wouldn't result in the earth collapsing into a sphere the same way that gravity would if you want to merge the two theories.

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....

It can definitely be hard to wrap your head around.

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.

If you stay in the same reference frame, you can’t.  But theoretically, if you could change your reference frame, you could travel back to a time before the photon was absorbed. It doesn’t need to be un-emitted.

You are getting hung up on the time travel stuff, you are missing the bigger picture.

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.

A lightning strike is an event and so is each incremental change in position of a photon.  An event either happens simultaneously in two different reference frames or it doesn’t.  Einstein used the example of two lighting strikes on either end of a moving train. From the platform, the strikes would appear simultaneous.  From the train, they wouldn’t.  Relativity says that if the frames are in relative motion, events won’t happen simultaneously. Time is literally experienced differently.  That makes makes presentism logically impossible.

If you think that means there must be an infinite number of copies of every moment in the universe, your problem is with relativity, not block time.

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.

You and the alien would just be viewing the same “original” event from two different reference frames.  Before he travels, both of your reference frames are the same, now.  The alien changes his reference frame when he travels back.  Your frame is still your now, but his now becomes your past. 

The people on an airplane traveling towards a lightning strike will perceive it before someone stationary on the ground.  They don’t see an “original” strike and a “copy” strike.  They see the same strike from two different reference frames.

Your analogy of a movie was pretty close.  Changing reference frames or “teleporting” to the past or future would be the analog of  rewinding   or fast forwarding the movie.  There’s only one movie.  Nothing about it has to change or be copied to fast forward or rewind.  The only thing that changes is which part of it you are experiencing.

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.

You are pretty close, but I don't understand why you think there would have to be any "copies".  Each moment exists only once.  There is only one reality and we experience it according to our reference frame, the point in spacetime we at determines what "now" is.

I get that it is hard to wrap your head around, but the logic can't be denied.

According to presentism, only the present exists. But according to special relativity, which events occur simultaneously (and are therefore co-present) depends on a frame of reference. So something can both exist and not exist, depending on which frame of reference you are looking from. That's absurd.

Anyway, whether you agree with it or not, my original point was that block time isn't inconsistent with relativity...which somebody claimed, not sure if it was you, though. In fact, its well accepted science that relativity requires it.

Sean Carroll said "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."

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. 

If your clock is running slower than mine, my future is your now.  Being able to see it or experience has nothing to do with whether or not something exists.  I can’t see or experience Mt. Everest right now, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I’m not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything, I’m just pointing out that block time is the logical outcome of relativity.  Relativity is about spacetime, space and time are fused in a single entity.  If all of space exists at a given moment, then all of time does too.  You can’t separate them.

If the only reality is now and now is subjective, depending on your frame of reference, then reality is subjective and depends on your frame of reference.  Things would exist in only certain frames of reference and not in others.  That doesn’t comport with reality.  There is such a thing as objective reality.

And it wouldn’t take “infinite” energy.  It would take all the energy in the universe to maintain everything that exists in the universe, and that sounds about right.

You are free to disagree that relativity leads to block time of course.  Just pointing out that you are disagreeing with virtually every world class physicist (and even not world class) there is.

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.

No it doesn’t.  Just because an event isn’t accessible to an observer doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

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.
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.
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]

 The loaf analogy comes from Brian Greene’s book The Fabric of the Cosmos is an analogy for spacetime (a concept of relativity) and is based on relativity, so you aren’t right saying that the analogy isn’t a correct understanding of relativity.  Relativity isn't compatible with presentism ( only the present is real)

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

Time dilation is what makes your “now” different from someone else’s “now”.  Your “now” could be their future and according to relativity, their frame of reference (the future) is just as valid as yours, therefore it exists to the same extent as your “now” does.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 22, 2022, 10:38:29 PM »
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)?

This is a weird question.  Science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen.  If there was no gravity, why would anyone think something was preventing us from falling?  The obvious answer to why we don't fall would be there was no cause or force to make it happen.

Pages: [1]