Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.
This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
Mount Nevado Huascarán in Peru has the lowest gravitational acceleration, at 9.7639 m/s2, while the highest is at the surface of the Arctic Ocean, at 9.8337 m/s2.
In any event, I would say that the non-uniform value for acceleration due to gravity is one of the easiest ways to argue that FE theory is inadequate as a model. Again, any FE's who have data to the contrary and who can describe their methods and the apparatus used, please post here. I would be glad to repeat the experiment to verify or refute.
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
Look, your link sent me to a single sentence! I'm not being funny but anyone can make up words and claim that they represent an actual phenomena. Without any actual data this statement is simply that, a statement, made by a person (unknown). Do you not see that?If you check my post history I haven't referred to FE as a theory in a LONG time, because FE IS a hypothesis in the scientific sense. Most holes are 'patched' with things like this. The studies you can't find on celestial gravitation? There aren't any. For all intents and purposes it's an answer given to explain the phenomena that has been observed. Although some will debate whether the phenomena is even real, and there ARE a few other explanations for said phenomena. FE proponents would likely point to their lack of funding as to why there is nothing that has been done/published to verify this effect.QuoteCelestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
Again, we must establish some boundaries for what is allowed into the debate. Otherwise the debate becomes meaningless. If the wiki is to be valued it must link to the data and the studies that establish the theory, otherwise YOU must do that here. Otherwise it is not a theory, it is a 'Hypothesis'. There is a huge difference.
It is not reasonable to expect someone to go looking for a phenomena so unusual and without reference points that it only appears on other flat earth boards. That is a red flag right there. If the wiki cannot elaborate in any way how celestial gravity works in comparison to Newtonian celestial gravity then why should any reader expect that the information exists elsewhere. Please can we stick to tested provable Physics with up to date data to back it up.
Curious squirrel. I have searched the internet, I am 5 pages into Google and can't find a single reference to a study of celestial gravitation. Could whoever wrote the wiki (the gatekeeper of such information?) please update the wiki with some links. Otherwise I respectfully suggest that this case is closed wrt UA.
The studies you can't find on celestial gravitation? There aren't any. For all intents and purposes it's an answer given to explain the phenomena that has been observed.
long paragraphs about topics that have been covered repeatedly, while not asking a question in FE Q&A
I hope you haven't somehow come under the impression I believe in the FE hypothesis as anything more than an interesting thought experiment. You asked a question that had an already provided answer in the wiki. I do my best to assist with such threads when they show up in Q&A as a service to our hosts, the Flat Earth Society. As I said originally, you not thinking it's very strong, does not stop it from being the provided answer.QuoteThe studies you can't find on celestial gravitation? There aren't any. For all intents and purposes it's an answer given to explain the phenomena that has been observed.
Well my point is that when people who have an exhaustively tested theory that matches all observations and experimental data. That IS a theory.
To come along and attempt to overthrow such a theory one might expect an even bigger body of evidence with even greater statistical certainty around the data. To NOT EVEN HAVE DATA in a foundational part of the theory is unforgivable. Until UA can be argued with ANY DATA at all it should remain a belief, a posit a musing. It should not have its own personal place on a preeminent FE website who's function is to try an educate people that the RE model is wrong. The two theories are not even in the same ballpark.
Just a question, but why do you DISbelieve the data and the evidence that DOES exist for the RE model?
empirical evidence proves that gravity as modern science presents it cannot exist
not that big of leap that CG wouldn't be fully understood either, but it is observed
Of course we have direct measurement. The accelleration (undistinguishable from gravity) is more at sea level than higher up on mountains. This is a fact and observed many times.
Of course we have direct measurement. The accelleration (undistinguishable from gravity) is more at sea level than higher up on mountains. This is a fact and observed many times.
As I already stated, this is a function of the inverse square law. The force of attraction reduces as the square of the distance. This is Newtonian gravitation and has been measured. The size of the reduction agrees with the formula.
You are proposing the reason is Celestial gravitation without showing measurements or observation of this affect. To cite 'observed' you need an independant demonstration similar to the Schiehallion experiment for Newtonian gravitation. Note, Celestial gravitation must be substantial if it is affecting the result for gravity on Earth, so show me the data!
Not that it is my job to design an experiment to furnish data but one might start by setting up measurement stations in different countries where fluctuations are observed. One might then study the orientation of the stellar objects above and calculate the mean distance to the nearest and thus most influential (assuming CG proposes a link with distance). As the stars move in the sky one could plot the relationship between mean distance and gravity on Earth. If the stars are the source one might also consider other features such as mass.....hmmm this is beginning to sound familiar. If a relationship exists (i.e. straight line through the origin of a graph) bingo!
Now such a theory would also have to explain why the gravity at a particular location DOESN'T CHANGE while the configuration of stars above does, since that IS what we would see. Curious that, isn't it. How could one explain such an anomaly? The theory you propose does not stand up to the barest scrutiny. It is insulting that so little effort is put in and yet you make your statements with such conviction.
you sure are confident about gravity without even knowing how gravity works, interesting.
the mechanics of RE Gravity are NOT known (same with CG)...unless you recently discovered how and then i will apologize to you are your forthcoming Nobel prize
as far as position of stars affecting the values??? seriously, you are really just trying to find anything to argue on when nothing is there. do you really think there is variability in the distribution of starts to affect the values??? look up in the sky next time its dark, stars are pretty consistently spread accross the sky
CG bases it as distance from the stars. and the same results. sea level = 1g, higher elevations <1g.
I am saying that gravity (or acceleration due to gravity, yes the one causes the other) is caused by mass. What you are saying is entirely unclear.
Look, if you really want to get into it we would have to move to Einstein's model of space-time. I figured it would be better to keep it simple.
Semantics aside, how can UA account for the varying values of g across the Earth while it is possible to find values for g at equal altitudes that differ. The theory you lay out cannot account for such measurements. That is a significant problem fro the theory. That is where we should keep our attention.
Since space-time came up though. UA makes no prediction of gravitational waves. Einsteins general theory makes no mention of UA. They can't both be right. Indeed, the presence of UA suggests another new gravitational force must be incorporated into the universe. If it is a gravitational force (between masses) then Einsteins theory is either wrong or deficient. Good luck trying to argue that! Especially given the recent detection of gravitational waves. Or is that all a big conspiracy as well?
as far as varying "gravity", its already been explained how it works in UA, you have chosen to ignore or not accept it, and thats fine. and you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right?? kind of another import part you are missing.
as far as varying "gravity", its already been explained how it works in UA, you have chosen to ignore or not accept it, and thats fine. and you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right?? kind of another import part you are missing.
You did not explain it, you made a statement and now call it fact. Please enlight us as to how acceleration at the top of a mountain would be less than at sea level?
celestial gravition is a force acting upon earth from the heavenly bodies, similar to what RE would call gravity. its is a very small force, that increases as you increase elevation on earth (closer to celestial bodies). it has a negative affect against the forces of UA. this is why an objects weight would be less at the top of mount everest than at sea level.
and before you go on an ask how celestial gravitation works....well, we dont know. the same as RE dont know how gravity works. it can be measured/calculated but how it works is unknown, so not that big of leap that CG wouldnt be fully understood either, but it is observed.
you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right?? kind of another import part you are missing.
The famous Schiehallion experiment involved measuring the deviation of a plumb line placed next to the mountain Schiehallion in Perthshire (I used to live there). The deviation gives an instant indication of the evident force between masses and the numbers are in line with the aforementioned equation. Only when you can do such a direct observational experiment can you say something is 'observed'.
You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this.
Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses.
Any force below a certain minimum amount will not be expressed, and will not lead to motion. Especially with the example of the apple, I suspect that the air pressure between the apple and the torsion bar would prevent the calculated force from expressing itself.
You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this.
Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses.
Good lord man, please stop, you are embarrassing yourself. I have direct quoted you already pointing out your ignorance....the fact you don't get it is telling
And that is not what gravity is, seriously, have you ever taken physics. That is neither the Einstein or Newtonian definition... Is it your own (again)?
Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.
At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.
Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that ......may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered.
chirp, chirp.....chirp, chirp.......chirp, chirp.........
Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.
Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.
Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.
So he continues with....QuoteAt first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.
Which is exactly why Cavendish didn't ignore them!
....However, just before we dissect this can I just say.......how likely is it that this meticulous scientist, famed for his legendary attention to detail, even among scientists down through the ages...... What tiny chance is there that Cavendish had a 'bad day at the office' and his seminal experiment is actually bogus and masses DON'T actually attract each other.
Versus the chance that Miles Mathis, some dude who believes the value of Pi is 4, yup you heard right!!! Pi =4 people! Go get your circles out and measure 'em all again cause 2 x pi x r is no longer valid for calculating circumferences.
Aside from the fact the Miles refers to E/M fields which would indicate 'light' we will assume that he meant electrostatic and magnetic fields. We can immediately eliminate magnetic fields as lead is not a magnetic material so would be unaffected. It is unclear what precautions might have been taken to reduce the effect of static charge build up but given that lead is a conductor it would have been easy to discharge the balls with a simple wire to Earth before running the experiment. Miles cannot confirm that this was not done.
Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.
Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.
I encourage you to learn more about the world. Lead is affected by magnetism.
QuoteFerromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.
Tom, diamagnetism is a residual effect that all materials have. In this respect, I can be considered magnetic, indeed this is how MRI scanners work. However, the problem for the point you make is that diamagnetism is a dynamic not a static effect. In other words you would need an alternating magnetic field NOT a bar magnet (creating a static field) in order to even see this effect.
QuoteFerromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.
Tom, diamagnetism is a residual effect that all materials have. In this respect, I can be considered magnetic, indeed this is how MRI scanners work. However, the problem for the point you make is that diamagnetism is a dynamic not a static effect. In other words you would need an alternating magnetic field NOT a bar magnet (creating a static field) in order to even see this effect.
Incorrect again, Mr. Physics degree. Here is a video of lead being affected by static permanent magnets:
https://youtu.be/G2XECoY3TKs
Diamagnetic materials are repelled by a magnetic field; an applied magnetic field creates an induced magnetic field in them in the opposite direction, causing a repulsive force.
...
Notable diamagnetic materials[3]
Material χv [× 10−5 (SI units)]
Superconductor −105
Pyrolytic carbon −40.9
Bismuth −16.6
Mercury −2.9
Silver −2.6
Carbon (diamond) −2.1
Lead −1.8
Carbon (graphite) −1.6
Copper −1.0
Water −0.91
Does it matter? Graphite is right next to lead as a diamagnetic material.And don't you think that those designing this sort of experiment might know far more about than you might about the precautions necessary?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiamagnetismQuoteDiamagnetic materials are repelled by a magnetic field; an applied magnetic field creates an induced magnetic field in them in the opposite direction, causing a repulsive force.
...
Notable diamagnetic materials[3]
Material χv [× 10−5 (SI units)]
Lead −1.8
Copper −1.0
In the video I posted we had a static permanent magnet and a diamagnetic material that was clearly interacting with it.
Incorrect again, Mr. Physics degree. Here is a video of lead a diamagnetic material being affected by static permanent magnets:
A thin slice of pyrolytic graphite, which is an unusually strong diamagnetic material, can be stably floated in a magnetic field, such as that from rare earth permanent magnets. This can be done with all components at room temperature, making a visually effective demonstration of diamagnetism.
Pi assumes that it is possible for a perfect circle to exist, and that has never been demonstrated
Euclid's ElementsParallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.
Book I
Definition 23
Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23 (http://webspace.ship.edu/mrcohe/inside-out/vu1/d_joyce/elements/bookI/defI23.html)
QuoteEuclid's ElementsParallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.
Book I
Definition 23
Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23 (http://webspace.ship.edu/mrcohe/inside-out/vu1/d_joyce/elements/bookI/defI23.html)
That is an incorrect deduction from the observation of flies seeming to "spontaneously generate from rotting meat".QuoteEuclid's ElementsParallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.
Book I
Definition 23
Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23 (http://webspace.ship.edu/mrcohe/inside-out/vu1/d_joyce/elements/bookI/defI23.html)The Ancient Greeks
Animal Reproduction 101
Flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.
Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants ... So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs.
The point is entirely relevant.Not at all relevant. Euclid's Elements Book I Definition 23 is his definition of "parallel straight lines", so is making no "assumptions about the world".
The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the world to a criminal level, without the necessity of evidence of fact.That's your opinion but where their "assumptions about the world" have not been supported by later evidence those "assumptions" have been discarded.
Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"
Hi I hope you can help as you seem to be well versed in FE gravity. I’m new to this whole thing and studied Newtonian physics for a while for working out trajectories and various other things.
Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"
what specifically are you asking?
you have to remember that all laws/math that you are using to try and prove a round earth were all developed based on the same earth that we are claiming to be flat. a lot of the math would be the same, but the fact the math was done based on an assumed "round" earth is where some errors can occur.
I don't know what math could change.
Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"
what specifically are you asking?
you have to remember that all laws/math that you are using to try and prove a round earth were all developed based on the same earth that we are claiming to be flat. a lot of the math would be the same, but the fact the math was done based on an assumed "round" earth is where some errors can occur.
The variation of measured g with altitude? "Celestial Gravitation" has been suggested, but that raises the question as to why "celestial mass" should attract "terrestrial mass" but "terrestrial mass" not attract "terrestrial mass".
celestial gravition is a force acting upon earth from the heavenly bodies, similar to what RE would call gravity. its is a very small force, that increases as you increase elevation on earth (closer to celestial bodies). it has a negative affect against the forces of UA. this is why an objects weight would be less at the top of mount everest than at sea level.