Gravity experiment
« on: August 20, 2021, 03:59:31 PM »
Hypothesis: gravity exists, and we can show it interacting on objects by dropping an apple
experiment: we have 3 tests.

our first one is the control. we are simply dropping an apple and a magnet from a foot off the ground and observing what happens.

our second one, we will drop an apple and magnet in a vaccum chamber. we will observe what happens and hopefully we see they A: both fall
and B: fall at the same speed

you could argue that rather than gravity existing we are just moving upwards, but i dont think this would explain other observations we make, such as gravitational lensing, (something you could observe on your own with a telescope)

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2021, 03:38:04 AM »
Hypothesis: gravity exists, and we can show it interacting on objects by dropping an apple
experiment: we have 3 tests.

Mostly so far so good. What gravity is (that is hypothesized to exist) needs to be both rigorously defined and real to be part of a valid hypothesis (currently it is neither).

Quote
our first one is the control. we are simply dropping an apple and a magnet from a foot off the ground and observing what happens.

That is a simple observation, not in any way an experiment.

Quote
our second one, we will drop an apple and magnet in a vaccum chamber. we will observe what happens and hopefully we see they A: both fall
and B: fall at the same speed

Another simple observation.

Quote
you could argue that rather than gravity existing we are just moving upwards, but i dont think this would explain other observations we make, such as gravitational lensing, (something you could observe on your own with a telescope)

There is good reason to doubt the existence of gravitational lensing.  Perhaps the most obvious is its absolute lack of any experimental support of any kind.

So, we were off to an ok start - the hypothesis needed some work but otherwise looking pretty good.

Unfortunately the vast majority of us never learn the correct definitions of scientific vernacular, and to make matters worse - the colloquial definitions that we learn and use are incorrect.

An experiment MUST test the hypothesis by establishing a causal link (ideally) between an IV(hypothesized cause) and a DV(hypothesized effect of that cause).  None of your mere observations are experiments, nor do they test the hypothesis (which itself needs work to be valid).

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2021, 07:30:41 AM »
Mostly so far so good. What gravity is (that is hypothesized to exist) needs to be both rigorously defined and real to be part of a valid hypothesis (currently it is neither).
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.
Work continues to detect gravity waves (first accomplished in 2015).  The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B experiment (really stunning work) actually measured the warping of space around the earth in 2007.  There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO that uses tiny changes in the orbit of 2 satellites (one getting closer or further from the other) to infer changes in mass below them and when we go look at the earth there, we find what is predicted (mostly being used to find water).  The predictions of special and general relativity on time have also been very well established experimentally thus giving more support for the overall theory.  There is also the observation of stars doing a very tight turn around an object that we can not see, exactly as predicted for a black hole.

That is a simple observatio, not in any way an experiment.
This is a commonly expressed sentiment amount FEers, but its wrong. Science is a methodology involving making observations and then using Bayesian reasoning to estimate how likely it would be to observe that if various theories were true.  There are of course lots of rules and procedures to get good observations including how to do so if what you are observing is a constructed experiment, but clear results do not require such construction.

There is good reason to doubt the existence of gravitational lensing.  Perhaps the most obvious is its absolute lack of any experimental support of any kind.
Light being bent by passing by a large mass was observed in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun.  The eclipse allowed observations of stars as their observed position was very close to the sun (which we normally could not see).  Calculating the portions of these stars using those observations showed them to be slightly off from calculations when we can see them not near the sun just as Einstein had predicted in 1915.  The light was bent by passing very close to the sun.  Numerous observations of all sorts of gravitational lens effects have been made that conform to just what the theory predicts.  Its quite well established.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2021, 07:33:53 AM by ichoosereality »

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2021, 08:49:14 AM »
An experiment MUST test the hypothesis by establishing a causal link (ideally) between an IV(hypothesized cause) and a DV(hypothesized effect of that cause).
How is that possible?
We have a hypothesis that gravity is a thing and the earth is a massive globe.
If that is true then objects should be attracted to the surface of the earth - which means we'd expect them to fall towards the ground.
We can test that hypothesis and find it to be true, but then FE comes along and says "actually, the earth is flat and accelerating upwards".
Either hypothesis would explain the observation.
Where the hypothesis of gravity and a globe earth wins of course is we've observed the globe earth from space and experiments like the Cavandish experiment and observations of variations in g can't be explained by the FE assertions.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2021, 05:20:00 PM »
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.

This is incorrect, but commonly taught.  Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old. Often when speaking of gravity colloquially, we are actually talking about gravitation.  Gravity is purely the observation of the phenomenon.  Gravitation is a theoretical cause of the completely real phenomenon.  Handwaving "mass does it" is not a rigorous definition - obviously.

Gravitation is neither rigorously defined nor understood.  It is important to recognize this fact.

Quote
Work continues to detect gravity waves (first accomplished in 2015).

If they exist, yes - that's true.  We are still looking for gravitation almost 3 centuries after it was invoked by newton. No luck yet :(

Also you should be aware that gravity waves are NOT gravitational waves.  There are semantical tricks being played with the vernacular.

As for local variances in weight on earth, yes - those exist.  Beyond that in "outer space"... let's try to keep the conversation a little more "down to earth" for the time being.  As much as I would like to dive head first into your examples - it'll mostly distract for now.

Quote
Science is a methodology

Correct, it is known as the scientific method.

> and then using Bayesian reasoning to estimate how likely

Incorrect.  Neither bayesian reasoning nor estimation of likelihood are a part of the scientific method.  I recognize that many scientists employ them, but they are deviations from the scientific method (ie science).

Quote
There are of course lots of rules and procedures to get good observations including how to do so if what you are observing is a constructed experiment, but clear results do not require such construction.

Experiment is a required step in the scientific method, without exception.
 
Quote
Light being bent by passing by a large mass was observed in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. 

That was popularly advertised at the time, and still believed by many today - yes.  This was a marketing stunt for relativity, but really understanding that will take a lot of historical study on your part should you be interested.

Quote
Its quite well established.

It's quite widely taught, and so therefore believed, but has no experimental support of any kind and is unscientific (by definition) as a result.

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2021, 08:00:48 PM »
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.
This is incorrect, but commonly taught.  Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old. Often when speaking of gravity colloquially, we are actually talking about gravitation.  Gravity is purely the observation of the phenomenon.  Gravitation is a theoretical cause of the completely real phenomenon.  Handwaving "mass does it" is not a rigorous definition - obviously.

Gravitation is neither rigorously defined nor understood.  It is important to recognize this fact.
We know from the gravity probe B data that space IS warped around the earth as predicted by general relativity.  Why mass warps space is another issue and what ever that turns out to be, there will certainly be a why for that and for that.  We can never get to the end of this chain so to you that seems to mean nothing is defined or understood.
The newtonian approximation for gravitational attraction between two bodies contains only the Gravitional constant, the 2 masses and the distance and it yields the correct result to precisely predict all the movement in our solar system and even of other galaxies. The gravitational force between two masses is precisely defined.   Closing your eyes makes things go away only for you.

And what does "Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old." mean?
Work continues to detect gravity waves (first accomplished in 2015).
Also you should be aware that gravity waves are NOT gravitational waves.  There are semantical tricks being played with the vernacular.
So you just brush aside this work with no support and accuse me of "handwaving".  Please.

As for local variances in weight on earth, yes - those exist.  Beyond that in "outer space"... let's try to keep the conversation a little more "down to earth" for the time being.  As much as I would like to dive head first into your examples - it'll mostly distract for now.
The old "I could completely defeat your argument but..." ploy.  Not exactly convincing.

Experiment is a required step in the scientific method, without exception.
So then for you cosmology, astronomy, ecology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, most of biology, and anything that involves observing the natural world without the ability to conduct an experiment, is not science.  Certainly ruling out the entire process of observing the world and comparing what is observed to the predictions of various theories would be welcomed by FE believers since FE's titanic failures in such comparisons would then be off limits.   (example: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18502.0)  But that is not how science works.

Quote
Light being bent by passing by a large mass was observed in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. 
That was popularly advertised at the time, and still believed by many today - yes.  This was a marketing stunt for relativity, but really understanding that will take a lot of historical study on your part should you be interested.
Why it was done (and repeated in 1922) does not alter the data the was collected.  So even if you are correct, it does not matter.  What matters is only whenever the data is accurate and I have seen no evidence that it is not.  This same observation is regularly repeated by amateur astronomers https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/testing-general-relativity
« Last Edit: August 22, 2021, 08:06:02 PM by ichoosereality »

hvanmunster

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2021, 08:03:27 PM »
Quote from: jack44556677 link=topic=18500.msg245560#msg245560

It's quite widely taught, and so therefore believed, but has no experimental support of any kind and is unscientific (by definition) as a result.

The same  can be said about electromagnetic acceleration (bending of light) and about universal acceleration (surrogate gravity), yet both are presented as theories on the wiki. They are at best merely hypotheses and since they are the building blocks of the flat earth ideology, the entire flat earth idea is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2021, 10:38:03 PM »
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.

This is incorrect, but commonly taught.  Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old. Often when speaking of gravity colloquially, we are actually talking about gravitation.  Gravity is purely the observation of the phenomenon.  Gravitation is a theoretical cause of the completely real phenomenon.  Handwaving "mass does it" is not a rigorous definition - obviously.

Gravitation is neither rigorously defined nor understood.  It is important to recognize this fact.

Time dilation is rigorously defined, understood and experimentally verified.  Even the FE wiki recognizes that.  And time dilation is, ultimately. the "cause of gravity".

Everything, at all times, is moving through spacetime at c.  Velocity through time + velocity through space=c.  Time dilation means that things move through time faster at higher elevations relative to things at lower elevations.  A stationary object moves through the time dimension at c and through space dimension at 0.  If it begins to move through the space dimension, then its motion through the time dimension must decrease.

This is accomplished as objects follow geodesics created by the warping of space time.  The geodesics will always curve downwards (where time moves more slowly).  Forward motion in time results in downward motion in space in order to maintain equilibrium at c.


Its  really a bit more complicated than that, but the bottom line is that time dilation, which even, FET acknowledges exists, is what causes things to fall.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2021, 10:39:55 PM by Mark1986 »

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2021, 02:08:31 AM »
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.

This is incorrect, but commonly taught.  Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old. Often when speaking of gravity colloquially, we are actually talking about gravitation.  Gravity is purely the observation of the phenomenon.  Gravitation is a theoretical cause of the completely real phenomenon.  Handwaving "mass does it" is not a rigorous definition - obviously.

Gravitation is neither rigorously defined nor understood.  It is important to recognize this fact.

Time dilation is rigorously defined, understood and experimentally verified.  Even the FE wiki recognizes that. 
yes time dilation is well documented.

And time dilation is, ultimately. the "cause of gravity".
I am baffled by those who think that they can just throw out random cruft like this and think it should hold equal sway with theories developed over many decades and well supported but rigorous analysis by many researchers.  If you want to push your pet theory, go study for a few years, work in the field for more, get some credentials, and publish in actual scientific forums (of which this is NOT one).

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2021, 04:01:51 AM »
Quote
 If you want to push your pet theory, go study for a few years, work in the field for more, get some credentials, and publish in actual scientific forums (of which this is NOT one).

A guy named Albert Einstein already did that.

“If we restrict ourselves to the case which almost exclusively offers itself to our experience,  of v being small as compared with the velocity of light...…What is remarkable in this result is that the component g₄₄ [the time component of spacetime curvature ] of the fundamental tensor alone defines, to a first approximation, the motion of a material point.

That’s from p. 158-9 of The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity in a section titled Newton’s Theory as a First Approximation

Kip Thorne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne) explains what Einstein meant in Chapter 4 of his book The Science of Interstellar

Warped Time and Space, and Tidal Gravity
Einstein's Law of Time Warps
Einstein struggled to understand gravity on and off from 1907 onward. Finally in 1912 he had a brilliant inspiration.Time, he realized,must be warpedby the masses of heavy bodies such as the Earth or a black hole,and that warping is responsible for gravity. He embodied this insight in what I like to call "Einstein's law of time warps," a precise mathematical formula1 that I describe qualitatively this way: Everything likes to live where it will age the most slowly, and gravity pulls it there.
The greater the slowing of time, the stronger gravity's pull.

This is a really good distillation of the subject if you are more of a visual learner.


 Any physicist will tell you that there is very little (relatively speaking) warping of the space component of spacetime near the earth. It isn’t massive enough.  For practical purposes, it is flat and what we experience as gravity on earth is due to the warping of the time component. Of course you are free to disagree with the idea, but it is hardly my pet theory. Its pretty mainstream.  At the beginning of the video I linked, the host references numerous other videos that explain the same thing in different ways.  You might try doing some research before making snide comments

Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2021, 05:56:42 AM »

 Any physicist will tell you that there is very little (relatively speaking) warping of the space component of spacetime near the earth. It isn’t massive enough.  For practical purposes, it is flat and what we experience as gravity on earth is due to the warping of the time component. Of course you are free to disagree with the idea, but it is hardly my pet theory. Its pretty mainstream.  At the beginning of the video I linked, the host references numerous other videos that explain the same thing in different ways.  You might try doing some research before making snide comments
Good advice for anyone.  I apologize for the snide comment.  To be honest when I read
"Everything, at all times, is moving through spacetime at c.  Velocity through time + velocity through space=c.  Time dilation means that things move through time faster at higher elevations relative to things at lower elevations.  A stationary object moves through the time dimension at c and through space dimension at 0.  If it begins to move through the space dimension, then its motion through the time dimension must decrease. "
I didn't take much seriously. That is NOT how Throne describes it.  I've never seen any claim that everything is moving a the speed of light.  But I'll take it that Thorne's view is what you were referring too (and I was not very familiar with it myself so thanks for that).


Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2021, 12:24:17 PM »
No worries, but the idea of everything moving through spacetime at c is fundamental to relativity.  The Thorne quote didn’t address it directly, but its accepted as axiomatic.

“Special relativity declares a similar law for all motion: the combined speed of any object’s motion through space and its motion through time is always precisely equal to the speed of light. At first, you may instinctively recoil from this statement since we are all used to the idea that noting but light can travel at light speed.  But that familiar idea refers solely to motion through space.  We are now talking about something related, yet richer, an object’s combined motion through space and time.  The key fact, Einstein discovered, is that these two kinds of motion are always complementary.  When the parked car you were looking at speeds away, what really happens is that some of its light-speed motion is diverted from motion through time into motion through space, keeping their combined total unchanged.  Such diversion unassailably means that the car’s motion through time slows down.”

That’s from Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos” (sorry can’t cite the page #, its on my Kindle location 1131, if that helps, lol). It doesn’t get anymore mainstream than Brian Greene.  He’s the Nickleback of physics.

 That’s the essence of time dilation and why it causes things to fall.  When an object goes from stationary to moving through space (without any outside forces) the only path it can take is its geodesic because there is no “extra energy” to move it and the geodesic is the path of least resistance. Because of the way time dilation curves spacetime, that geodesic will always be down.  And because it moves down in space, its motion through time is slowed and the balance of c is preserved.

Its really very elegant when you think about it.

*

Offline AlephNull

  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Technical Support Engineer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2021, 06:03:27 PM »
Gravity is not a problem for FE if there is an infinite plain - which I posit - if it is a finite dome you get all sorts of problems, yes, but it is not a finite dome - it goes on forever past the ice wall of Antarctica, an infinite ocean in which our world is sort of a floating "island" in this infinite ocean, bounded by the circular ring that is the Antarctic land mass - there may be other floating "island worlds" such as our own out there in the ocean plain, indeed an infinite amount of them, and fog prevents signals from those other worlds from reaching our  own. Gravity is a total red herring.

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1252
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity experiment
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2021, 07:19:19 PM »
Why or how does an ice wall exist if we are just one of many island worlds on an infinite plain? What are we floating on? And when did fog stop signal transmission?