The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TheHyperionite on July 20, 2019, 03:26:47 PM
-
It has been said by many flat earth believers that gravity is not responsible for the objects falling to the ground. It's explained by them that in fact the earth is going upwards, and from our perspective it looks like those objects are descending. I assume that they mean these objects are "frozen" in space, only moving when earth pushes them.
Now, if the earth is going up, that means that every point of the planet is moving exactly at the same speed, so that the earth can move upwards without suffering any deformations. So, since every part of the planet would be going up at the same speed, we would see every object falling exactly at the same speed: even if we dropped a feather and an anvil from a certain height, we'd expect to see them falling at the same speed. But we don't. What causes this?
-
Objects fall at the same speed regardless of how heavy they are. This was demonstrated by astronauts on the moon.
What make some objects fall faster than others on earth is air resistance.
-
And how would that work according to this theory? Is the air surrounding the earth going up too, along with the earth?
-
There are multiple explanations as far as I know. Some believe that the earth has a dome, so the atmosphere would be enclosed within the dome. Others might say that the ice wall contains the air and so on.
-
It is these sort of 'explanations' that to my mind make the whole concept of flat Earth theory so fascinating. And imaginative or should that be inventive. What is the belief based on?
I agree that the sky gives the perception of being a dome overhead. That's why planetariums are dome shaped. But we all know there isn't really a dome up there.
-
Well, I just thought of 2 things.
1- If the earth is really going up and pushing the air with it, wouldn't we have a much more concentrated layer of air at the surface of the earth?
2- If earth was indeed going upwards at about 9,8m/s2, we would feel it. We would feel no difference if the earth was not moving or if it was going up at a constant speed, but with an acceleration we would definitely feel it.
-
Well, I just thought of 2 things.
1- If the earth is really going up and pushing the air with it, wouldn't we have a much more concentrated layer of air at the surface of the earth?
2- If earth was indeed going upwards at about 9,8m/s2, we would feel it. We would feel no difference if the earth was not moving or if it was going up at a constant speed, but with an acceleration we would definitely feel it.
It is denser at sea level and decreases with altitude
We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it
-
A constantly accelerating earth would almost match what we observe in reality. The fact that a feather falls more slowly than something more dense would be caused by the same phenomenon, air resistance, because as I understand this hypothesis, yes the air is moving with the earth in an enclosed dome.
As I said though, it would only ALMOST match what we observe in reality. The one glaring piece of evidence that comes to mind is the fact that gravity at the poles is stronger (AKA accelerating faster in flat earth hypothesis) and the closer you get to the equator, the weaker (slower in FE) it gets.
This difference is quite small, roughly .5% difference between the poles and the equator, so you wouldn't notice it just walking around (you would notice the different weather though, LOL). A 200lb person at the north pole would roughly weigh 199lbs at the equator. Elevation also plays a role, albeit a more minor one. Higher elevations tend to have weaker gravity than the surrounding lower elevations.
This may not be noticeable in day to day life, but it is however not an insignificant difference. For the various FE models that claim earth is accelerating, it spells disaster. It doesn't take long at all for the earth to rip itself apart under these varying forces.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50838
EDIT:
As a side note. The notion of an accelerating earth as touted by many FE'rs doesn't seem to line up with zeteticism.
-
We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it
It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s2, meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.
-
We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it
It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s2, meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.
You aren’t understanding the physics. When you are touching the ground, you are experiencing the same force as you would if you were in free fall. The only difference is that the ground would be exerting an equal and opposite force against you.
You need to learn about special relativity, but first I highly recommend learning Newtonian physics.
-
We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it
It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s2, meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.
It is your weight = mg
If the ground gave way you would fall
In an accelerating upward elevator does your weight increase?
Would not the same occur on an upward accelerating earth vs a stationary or constant velocity one?
It's about the inertial reference frame
I already made that point
You would reach c in 353 days
-
You would reach c in 353 days
No, you would not. I would suggest taking a minute to learn something new instead of just posting something incorrect over and over.
-
You would reach c in 353 days
No, you would not. I would suggest taking a minute to learn something new instead of just posting something incorrect over and over.
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?
Others have said c in not an absolute limit
I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point
-
We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it
It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s2, meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
-
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?
Close, but less than c. Let me know if you need help with this.
Others have said c in not an absolute limit
Who are 'others.'
I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point
I suggest you take my earlier suggestion.
-
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?
Close, but less than c. Let me know if you need help with this.
Others have said c in not an absolute limit
Who are 'others.'
I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point
I suggest you take my earlier suggestion.
Not sure a flat earther is a physics reference lol
Help me: how close? 50%, 90% ?
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ?
Flat earthers in similar threads
I suggest you address tooics you have a clue about
That really narrows it down
;)
-
Not sure a flat earther is a physics reference lol
Help me: how close? 50%, 90% ?
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ?
Flat earthers in similar threads
I suggest you address tooics you have a clue about
That really narrows it down
;)
Okay, do me a favor and refrain from posting in the upper fora if all you have are lazy, low-effort posts and insults. Have a warning.
-
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?
This is like undergrad relativity, lecture 0. Maybe picking up a textbook is a good idea, rather than telling other people that they don't have a clue, hmm?
-
Let us not forget that variations measured in the earth’s gravitational field utterly debunks UA.
-
Let us not forget that variations measured in the earth’s gravitational field utterly debunks UA.
Debatable. I have three pages on this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry
-
Let us not forget that variations measured in the earth’s gravitational field utterly debunks UA.
Debatable. I have three pages on this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry
Borderline Gish Gallop.
First link doesn't relate to the topic at all.
As far as your second link. Are you trying to tell me air pressure affects the weight of a dense substance as much as .5%?
Water has a density of roughly 1000kg/m cubed.
Air has a density roughly, at sea level, of 1.2kg/m cubed.
Using our equations, this means that a human with a density roughly equivalent to water, would weigh around .12% more in a vacuum than in the atmosphere. So for a 200lb person, a difference of 1/4 pound. That's the difference from a vacuum to our atmosphere, NOT the natural variations in atmosphere due to temperature of which your speak.
A complete vacuum.
This difference is even higher when considering a metal weight, take steel (8,000kg/m3) or copper (9,000kg/m3) or even gold (19,000kg/m3). It's more likely when performing this experiment you would use a metal such as this. Easier to remain consistent.
Steel in a vacuum would weigh 1/1000th more than it would in the atmosphere. For a 200lb weight of steel, a difference of .03 lbs. Again, in a VACUUM.
This explanation does NOT account for the known ~.5% variations in weight for a given mass ANYWHERE on the earth. At any altitude, at any latitude.
This is an experiment anyone with the ability to purchase plane tickets or take a long, long drive can do.
-
What equations? Show, using weight of atmosphere, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, and all other elements in the environment which scale authorities say highly affects scales, that it does not affect a scale by a fraction of one percent.
-
What equations? Show, using weight of atmosphere, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, and all other elements in the environment which scale authorities say highly affects scales, that it does not affect a scale by a fraction of one percent.
Since it's your claim that the atmosphere can affect weight, isn't it your responsibility to support that claim with evidence?
-
What equations? Show, using weight of atmosphere, humidity, air viscosity, temperature, and all other elements in the environment which scale authorities say highly affects scales, that it does not affect a scale by a fraction of one percent.
Since it's your claim that the atmosphere can affect weight, isn't it your responsibility to support that claim with evidence?
There are several quotes in the link from scale authorities stating that it does highly affect scales.
It's your cited experiment that you guys put forward, which you think "disproves UA". The experiment needs to be controlled against other factors, which it is not. It is your responsibility to present proper experiments.
-
There are several quotes in the link from scale authorities stating that it does highly affect scales.
Do any of those quotes quantify the effect on the scales?
-
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?
Not close at all. You would be over 5000 times faster.
-
Not close at all. You would be over 5000 times faster.
That's some nice classical mechanics you've got going here. You may want to do some reading on why that's not how anything works.
-
Not close at all. You would be over 5000 times faster.
That's some nice classical mechanics you've got going here. You may want to do some reading on why that's not how anything works.
I understand it's not possible to exceed the speed of light. That's why it's not possible to accelerate forever. As v approaches c, mass approaches infinity, and thus it takes an infinite amount of energy to continue accelerating. Thus, it's impossible for the disc earth to accelerate at g for 1 year, let alone billions.
-
As v approaches c
In what frame of reference do you believe v would approach c?
-
As v approaches c
In what frame of reference do you believe v would approach c?
The frame of reference of the energy source that is propelling the ever accelerating earth
-
Let's set relativity aside for a moment. There's nothing in relativity preventing an object from traveling at .9c. So let's say the earth accelerated to .9c in October of year one of creation, and has been accelerating ever since, but somehow not surpassing .9c. When I was a kid in the early 70's, I was a bit into astronomy. I had a basic telescope, and I knew the names and locations of the common stars. Back then, the brightest star was Sirius A. Still is. Back then Sirius A was about 9 light years away. Still is. If earth were hurtling through the cosmos at .9c, Sirius could not be the same distance and brightness it was 45 years ago. It should be well in our rear view mirror by now. Depending on whether we were heading directly towards it, directly away, or somewhere in-between, it should be anywhere between 30 and 50 LY away, and considerably dimmer today. Yet it is not.
Most of the stars, including Sirius were known to the ancients. The ancient Egyptians knew about Orion, and provide us with plenty of drawings of the constellation from 4,000 years ago. It is roughly the same size and shape then as it is today. Which is clearly impossible on an earth traveling at .9c, or even .5c. The brightest star in Orion is Betelgeuse. It is 640 LY away today. Meaning that 4,000 years ago, it had to be 4240 LY away, and likely not visible to the naked eye.
-
As v approaches c
In what frame of reference do you believe v would approach c?
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
-
this topic is important for flat earther ..because the globe hoax is build upon the gravity hoax if we can destroy the gravity hoax then its over ... and i have question for people who think its globe : why gravity can pull a plume a paper and dust ..but cannot pull a clouds full of heavy water ? dont say coz its vapor etc ...what about a ballon full of passenger ? ...here you can think garvity is a hoax .......and when things acceleratat the same speed doesnt mean there is gravity ..maybe there is another explanation better in flat earth .......earth is flat
-
why gravity can pull a plume a paper and dust ..but cannot pull a clouds full of heavy water ?
Gravity does exert a force on water in clouds. They are held aloft, when they are aloft (remember, that water frequently falls to the ground. That is called rain.) by rising air currents which is caused by heat reflection off of the earth's surface. If the rising air current balance the force of gravity, the cloud remains level. Just like a fan will blow dust into the air. That doesn't mean gravity is not there. Just that the force of the fan is greater.
-
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.
-
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
-
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Why only 5,000? Are flat earthers also Young Earth Creationists?
-
In what frame of reference is the FE accelerating?
It is accelerating relative to an observer positioned a small distance above the Earth, and thus unaffected by Dark Energy.
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Why only 5,000? Are flat earthers also Young Earth Creationists?
Why not 5000? Pretty much any arbitrary time span greater than about 10 years of acceleration at 1g should produce a value pretty close to c. Since a lot of RE'ers don't understand the finer points of acceleration and frames of reference under special relativity, I'm just trying to get Pete (or anyone else willing) to teach us how to pick an appropriate frame of reference for the calculation and (hopefully) move the discussion along.
-
Pretty much any arbitrary time span greater than about 10 years of acceleration at 1g should produce a value pretty close to c.
More like 10 months.
-
Not close at all. You would be over 5000 times faster.
That's some nice classical mechanics you've got going here. You may want to do some reading on why that's not how anything works.
I understand it's not possible to exceed the speed of light. That's why it's not possible to accelerate forever. As v approaches c, mass approaches infinity, and thus it takes an infinite amount of energy to continue accelerating. Thus, it's impossible for the disc earth to accelerate at g for 1 year, let alone billions.
It's distressing that I'm going to defend this one aspect of FE, but it's absolutely possible to accelerate forever. To an outside frame of reference, you'll never reach C, and to you comparing your speed with those outside of your frame of reference, they'll never receded at C; but within your own frame of reference, you can continuously accelerate and you'll feel the acceleration. But you'll also experience time dilation (which you won't notice), which is why it'll still feel like you're accelerating just like you ever were.
But an accelerating flat Earth is ruled out by all the other observations such as lower gravity on mountains and poles.
-
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.
-
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue. It's the changing velocity of the FE as it approaches, meets and then moves beyond that reference point that's relevant. In this case, it's a question of how fast the FE would be moving 5000 years after passing that arbitrary reference point.
-
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments. There exists no observable frame of reference in which your supposed contradiction would present itself. Until you can negotiate that issue, your objection is a non-starter.
-
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments.
Interesting, because much of SR and GR are built on insights gained from hypothetical thought experiments, not the least of which being the equivalence principle which FE'ers often use as evidence supporting Universal Acceleration.
There exists no observable frame of reference in which your supposed contradiction would present itself. Until you can negotiate that issue, your objection is a non-starter.
I'm sorry but I didn't realize that I supposedly contradicted anything. I'm simply trying to establish a frame of reference from which the speed of the accelerating flat earth can be calculated.
-
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments.
Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
-
markjo, a friendly reminder that you're currently in the upper
Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
I didn't. The objection I addressed was that it would be impossible for the velocity of the Earth to continuously increase at a constant rate for an extended period of time, and thus UA is impossible.
Pointing out that this is not required or even implied under UA is absolutely essential. There exists no actual location in which the requirements of this argument would be met.
-
Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
I didn't. The objection I addressed was that it would be impossible for the velocity of the Earth to continuously increase at a constant rate for an extended period of time, and thus UA is impossible.
Pointing out that this is not required or even implied under UA is absolutely essential. There exists no actual location in which the requirements of this argument would be met.
It seems to me like this whole discussion started from Zonk's comment, If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?. It sounds to me like this whole discussion is about a thought experiment.
-
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue. It's the changing velocity of the FE as it approaches, meets and then moves beyond that reference point that's relevant. In this case, it's a question of how fast the FE would be moving 5000 years after passing that arbitrary reference point.
She won’t answer. But the answer is nearly 5155 times the speed of light.