The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Brian on February 27, 2019, 11:46:43 AM
-
Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?
-
Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?
For the most part their theory is that there is no gravity. Gravity being a mass related force on earth such that an object is drawn toward the center of mass of the earth by a force proportional to the mass of the object.
However, they do suppose gravitation does exist between other masses, for example between the celestial bodies and objects on earth.
I have asked the question about the nature of gravitation between the mass of the flat earth and objects on its surface but got no reply. I guess they believe the flat earth's mass is somehow different than all other mass. In addition, they have no model for their celestial gravitation. They cannot tell what nature the force has, nor can they predict it's behavior.
It's all in their wiki. It's a riveting and at the very least a thoroughly entertaining read. I suggest you got through it.
-
Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?
I'd say the most famous theory is that gravity doesn't exist between masses, but that there is some other unknown force that pulls us toward the earth.
Some say that the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared, (UA for Universal Acceleration), but others won't accept that because a stationary earth is core to their ideas, and if it's accelerating for a thousand years it's going billions of times the speed of light..
I've been trying to put the gravity claim to the test, using the Cavendish experiment which I recreated in a cardboard box:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961
and unfortunately there seems to be some weak attraction between lead weights which globers would call gravity.
Some among the flat earth community do admit that there is some unknown attraction between the lead weights, but say it's just not gravity.
Others among us say that the different tests of the gravitational force over the years have given results that varied by 0.045% from each other, so it must not be gravity because if it was gravity, all the tests would give the exact same results.
But I've only been involved in flat earth for a couple of months, so perhaps some long time members of the flat earth community can chime in here.
-
Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?
I've been trying to put the gravity claim to the test, using the Cavendish experiment which I recreated in a cardboard box:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961
and unfortunately there seems to be some weak attraction between lead weights which globers would call gravity.
Others among us say that the different tests of the gravitational force over the years have given results that varied by 0.045% from each other, so it must not be gravity because if it was gravity, all the tests would give the exact same results.
But I've only been involved in flat earth for a couple of months, so perhaps some long time members of the flat earth community can chime in here.
Hi Tom,
I'm a former REer and scientist who, after using confirmation bias to support my views for years (and acting like a real jerk on this website BTW), have come around (pun not intended) to FE claims. There's just too much internal consistency among FE claims for it to be all false, and REers are not investigating these things due to inherent bias.
I'm delighted to see your efforts to build a Cavendish experiment. One idea that might be helpful is to use a laser interferometer to produce precise measurements of the deflections. If that is too $$$, you could just affix a laser and point it at a screen set on the other side of the room. Slap a coordinate system on the screen, and you should be able to mark the movements. If done with care, you should be able to measure an oscillation. Calibration would then enable a measurement of G -- at least that's the RE interpretation.
Anyway, this might help decrease uncertainties to provide robust data for further analysis. If we are to find the error in Newtonian gravitation, a careful study of discrepancies will probably be needed, which will require many sig figs that are tricky to get.
-
Hi Tom,
I'm a former REer and scientist who, after using confirmation bias to support my views for years (and acting like a real jerk on this website BTW), have come around (pun not intended) to FE claims. There's just too much internal consistency among FE claims for it to be all false, and REers are not investigating these things due to inherent bias.
I'm delighted to see your efforts to build a Cavendish experiment. One idea that might be helpful is to use a laser interferometer to produce precise measurements of the deflections. If that is too $$$, you could just affix a laser and point it at a screen set on the other side of the room. Slap a coordinate system on the screen, and you should be able to mark the movements. If done with care, you should be able to measure an oscillation. Calibration would then enable a measurement of G -- at least that's the RE interpretation.
Anyway, this might help decrease uncertainties to provide robust data for further analysis. If we are to find the error in Newtonian gravitation, a careful study of discrepancies will probably be needed, which will require many sig figs that are tricky to get.
Thanks for the tips!
I actually have been able to build a laser interferometer for another approach, but I found that the thing is so extremely sensitive that the vibration level never settles from like the weather or moving in the house.
See my videos here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13892.0
I need to do it again on concrete floor which will have to wait a month or two. I may have to actually do it on a granite slab or other heavy block up on rubber mounts just to eliminate the vibration of the ground.
With Cavendish experiment, the biggest problem I was unable to solve was the torsional properties of the fishline. It seemed to drastically change twist bias when the room temperature changed.
Right now I have a little weight hanging in vacuum jar on two fishline strings, I may build a micro controller to measure the period of the swing using a laser diode and photo detector, and average the swing period over a few minutes.
If I can measure the exact period of the swing then measure it again with 23 pounds of lead right beneath, maybe I'll be able to get the difference swing frequency, and then calculate the force.
-
Christ QED is this really your alt? There's no reason for it, you're not banned. And you're very much no FE supporter. Can you just be normal so we don't have to ban everything that smells like you?
Just don't be a jerk in the upper fora and you can exist here just like everyone else. You're able to stir up decent discussions with what you know. Maybe just do that instead.
-
Christ QED is this really your alt? There's no reason for it, you're not banned. And you're very much no FE supporter. Can you just be normal so we don't have to ban everything that smells like you?
Just don't be a jerk in the upper fora and you can exist here just like everyone else. You're able to stir up decent discussions with what you know. Maybe just do that instead.
Hi Junker! No, Tom is not an (alt)er ego of mine. I wouldn't call myself a FEer, I'm really a scientist -- hence skeptic. After pursuing my own investigations, I have come to the conclusion that there appears to be internal consistency within FE theories, which RE science apparently refuses to acknowledge. "Behind the Curve" was kind of a breaking point for me: watching their non-scientific address of FE theories was ridiculous.
I seek the truth, and do not care what conclusion I find. I only want it to be accurate. Hence, presently I am investigating FE theories. I believe I can contribute to their development, given my expertise. Whether they are correct or otherwise, we will not know unless we explore it.
It is rather odd the change of scientific address when REers discuss FE theory. This should not happen, and I cannot in all honesty ignore it.
Hope that makes sense; I am still on cup of coffee #2 :)
-
Thanks for the feedback
-
There's just too much internal consistency among FE claims for it to be all false, and REers are not investigating these things due to inherent bias.
Hey QED, just curious, what would you say were the two most strongly co-consistent FE claims among this sea of internal consistency?
I've been totally disappointed so far, and nobody can say I didn't give it a fair shake.
In other news, my pendulum gravity meter has been running for a number of hours.
Unfortunately it has a 50ppm disturbance tendencies from people walking around in the house.
But when everyone goes to bed it gets more stable -- usually reading within 1ppm between successive readings.
The swing rate is about 1.5hz.
It looks like there's a sinewave increase in gravity of roughly 40ppm over night?? I wonder if that's because the sun is under the world instead of above the world?
I need to get this in a stable place so it's not upset by house vibrations or temperature.
Fortunately the pendulum is inside a vacuum chamber so not affected by atmospheric pressure changes.
What do you think of that sine-wave like increase in gravity over night?
-
This may be of some use to you;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
-
Can someone please tell me what is the most famous theory about flat earth gravity?
The Flat Earth Society's Wiki page about "Universal Acceleration" (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration) is worth a read.
-
This may be of some use to you;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
Fascinating! The half-wave tide height in Hawaii today was about 62ppm!
Am I actually measuring the same force that causes the tides?
-
The Flat Earth Society's Wiki page about "Universal Acceleration" (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration) is worth a read.
However it should be noted that upward acceleration is not universally accepted because a major point for many flat earthers is that the earth is stationary and in fact many flat earthers totally ridicule globers for claiming that "The earth is hurtling through space at a thousand miles an hour..."
UA of course requires that the earth is now going trillions and trillions of times faster than the speed of light.
I'm still struggling with this because it sort of requires light to have mass and well I'm not sure how to explain it.
But let's say you are shining a flashlight horizontally across a room.
That's what, 15 feet? Well how far did the light travel?
During the time it took it to travel that 15 feet horizontally, it also traveled 15 trillion trillion feet up, or whatever. So theoretically it would take a lot longer to get across the room.
The wiki sub section on terminal velocity seems rather odd to me. It gets all confused, forgetting that terminal velocity is related to the resistance of the medium (i.e. air/water) through which the weight is falling.
It would be exactly the same with gravity or UA.
-
Velocities do not add like that. See the UA page that SeaCritique posted above about Special Relativity.
-
Velocities do not add like that. See the UA page that SeaCritique posted above about Special Relativity.
How did you zetetically determine that Velocities of light do not add like that?
I will admit that I haven't determined a way to measure how light travel time adds up when there is a massive cross-beam velocity.
However, I zetetically know that when a bumblebee is buzzing around swimming in a puddle, the waves still travel at a constant rate unaffected by the speed of the bumblebee. (As long as he's going slower than the speed of the wave.)
Sure, there's blue shift in front of him and red shift behind him, but the speed of the waves on the water are constant.
so I'll admit that my zetetic abilities are not giving me an absolute solid knowledge of how light behaves differently than all the kinds of waves we can zetetically observe with our own senses.
So I guess the only way this is solved is if the ether is moving with the earth, and that light and radio waves are strictly propagated in the ether, and thus have a short path length.
And what is ether? we pump out all the air from a vacuum jar, and it's still full of ether? We can then accelerate particles to extreme speeds inside that vacuum, and they don't hit the ether?
How do you zetetically know that the ether exists, though?
-
How did you zetetically determine that Velocities of light do not add like that?
I will admit that I haven't determined a way to measure how light travel time adds up when there is a massive cross-beam velocity.
However, I zetetically know that when a bumblebee is buzzing around swimming in a puddle, the waves still travel at a constant rate unaffected by the speed of the bumblebee. (As long as he's going slower than the speed of the wave.)
Sure, there's blue shift in front of him and red shift behind him, but the speed of the waves on the water are constant.
so I'll admit that my zetetic abilities are not giving me an absolute solid knowledge of how light behaves differently than all the kinds of waves we can zetetically observe with our own senses.
So I guess the only way this is solved is if the ether is moving with the earth, and that light and radio waves are strictly propagated in the ether, and thus have a short path length.
And what is ether? we pump out all the air from a vacuum jar, and it's still full of ether? We can then accelerate particles to extreme speeds inside that vacuum, and they don't hit the ether?
How do you zetetically know that the ether exists, though?
Your acknowledgement of zeteticism (https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism) is inaccurate. The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.
-
Your acknowledgement of zeteticism (https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism) is inaccurate.
Interesting. Wiki page you linked to says Samuel Rowbotham used this method, measuring the water convexity, and from that concluded on a shape.
I wonder if he really had no initial theory.
The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.
What does that even really mean?
I mean think about it. We always start with some theory which prompts us to do a specific experiment or observation. That doesn't rule out the validity of the results of the experiment or the observation.
So I'm really not sure even what you're trying to claim.
But either way, for Mr. Bishop to cite a theory made by a glober as a source to state that "Velocities of light do not add like that" does not sound very zetetic on his part.
Remember? If *you* can't demonstrate it using first principles, *you* shouldn't believe it.
And neither should Mr. Bishop.
But it is very interesting that you say that zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory.
I have seen so much where flat earthers are digging like wolves to try and contort observed reality into their initial theory.
So here's the catch: While Einstein may have been zetetic and measured light and found that it's velocities does not add up that way, Mr. Bishop hasn't.
He didn't read Einstein's book and suddenly realize that light doesn't add up that way, he had a theory that required light to not add up that way, and went and found some possible experiments -- or at least someone else's musings -- which allegedly confirmed the prior theory.
And I'm not even sure Einstein even measured whether the velocities of light add up like that.
And if Albert didn't measure, and Bishop didn't measure -- no experiments done -- then I'm having a hard time seeing it as zetetic for Dr. Bishop to zetetically state that light velocities don't add up that way.
But picture this:
There's two race cars going 50 meters a second. They are 300,000,000 meters apart, but going parallel. On a big flat earth.
One of them shoots a pulsed laser cannon at the other. Right at him.
The only problem is that the light takes a second to get there. And by the time it gets there, the target has moved ahead 50 meters.
But it's a laser so he's not out of bullets yet, he stars aiming further and further forward.
He finds that he has to aim over 50 meters ahead of where his target is, in order for the light to intersect the target.
Now, this distance is actually longer than 300,000,000 meters because it's traversing the long side of a right triangle that is 50 by 300,000,000 meters.
Does the path length of light really not add up like that?
-
I stand with Tomfoolery's assessment of zeteticism. Scientists did not just say, "oh a flat earth is absurd, I propose a round earth theory. Let's go around making experiments that prove the earth is round." Literally, quite the opposite. Lots of ancient cultures and even biblical truthers believed the earth was flat well before anyone first proposed that the earth was round. Greek literature specifically supports the fact that they used direct observation of positions of the stars and lunar phases and eclipses to propose the spherical earth theory. So is that not zeteticism?
-
Here's two rocketships racing eachother.
One fires a laser cannon at the other.
Does he have to aim straight at him to hit him, or does he need to fire to where the target will be after the time it takes the light to arrive?
The reason I'm asking is because I think it's indisputable that he has to lead on the target.
And that increases the light path length.
And this means if the earth is racing upwards at 15 trillion trillion times the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight across the room, the light would have a much longer path, and would in fact take a very long time to reach the other side of the room, because the other side of the room would be in a drastically different place in the galaxy by the time the light arrived.
In conclusion, I'm having serious difficulties with UA.
(https://i.imgur.com/zvH3mO2.png)
-
Your acknowledgement of zeteticism (https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism) is inaccurate.
Interesting. Wiki page you linked to says Samuel Rowbotham used this method, measuring the water convexity, and from that concluded on a shape.
I wonder if he really had no initial theory.
The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.
What does that even really mean?
I mean think about it. We always start with some theory which prompts us to do a specific experiment or observation. That doesn't rule out the validity of the results of the experiment or the observation.
So I'm really not sure even what you're trying to claim.
But either way, for Mr. Bishop to cite a theory made by a glober as a source to state that "Velocities of light do not add like that" does not sound very zetetic on his part.
Remember? If *you* can't demonstrate it using first principles, *you* shouldn't believe it.
And neither should Mr. Bishop.
But it is very interesting that you say that zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory.
I have seen so much where flat earthers are digging like wolves to try and contort observed reality into their initial theory.
So here's the catch: While Einstein may have been zetetic and measured light and found that it's velocities does not add up that way, Mr. Bishop hasn't.
He didn't read Einstein's book and suddenly realize that light doesn't add up that way, he had a theory that required light to not add up that way, and went and found some possible experiments -- or at least someone else's musings -- which allegedly confirmed the prior theory.
And I'm not even sure Einstein even measured whether the velocities of light add up like that.
And if Albert didn't measure, and Bishop didn't measure -- no experiments done -- then I'm having a hard time seeing it as zetetic for Dr. Bishop to zetetically state that light velocities don't add up that way.
But picture this:
There's two race cars going 50 meters a second. They are 300,000,000 meters apart, but going parallel. On a big flat earth.
One of them shoots a pulsed laser cannon at the other. Right at him.
The only problem is that the light takes a second to get there. And by the time it gets there, the target has moved ahead 50 meters.
But it's a laser so he's not out of bullets yet, he stars aiming further and further forward.
He finds that he has to aim over 50 meters ahead of where his target is, in order for the light to intersect the target.
Now, this distance is actually longer than 300,000,000 meters because it's traversing the long side of a right triangle that is 50 by 300,000,000 meters.
Does the path length of light really not add up like that?
I would enjoy seeing the equations and solutions for this situation, using conventional special relativity.
BTW, it is very easy to demonstrate that things can move faster than the speed of light.
-
Here's two rocketships racing eachother.
One fires a laser cannon at the other.
Does he have to aim straight at him to hit him, or does he need to fire to where the target will be after the time it takes the light to arrive?
The reason I'm asking is because I think it's indisputable that he has to lead on the target.
And that increases the light path length.
And this means if the earth is racing upwards at 15 trillion trillion times the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight across the room, the light would have a much longer path, and would in fact take a very long time to reach the other side of the room, because the other side of the room would be in a drastically different place in the galaxy by the time the light arrived.
In conclusion, I'm having serious difficulties with UA.
(https://i.imgur.com/zvH3mO2.png)
How is it that you find it indisputable? Is the light not also moving upward at the same speed as the rockets when it is fired? The horizontal speed is independent from the vertical.
-
BTW, it is very easy to demonstrate that things can move faster than the speed of light.
Count me in, I want to see that demonstration.
-
BTW, it is very easy to demonstrate that things can move faster than the speed of light.
Count me in, I want to see that demonstration.
Imagine a water wave hitting a straight shoreline at some angle. The point where the water meets the shore will have a speed and will be moving along the shoreline, yes?
Now imagine a water wave that is almost parallel to the shore. That point will move faster.
There is a critical angle (dependent on the wave’s speed) where for angles smaller, that point will eclipse c.
Basic trig is all that is needed. Challenge: compute this critical angle as a function of the wave speed.
P.S. we call this the “phase” of the wave motion.
-
Another: have a big move across a transparent plate. Shine a light on the bug and put a screen below it. You will see the shadow move across the screen. Now move the screen very far away. The shadow will be moving faster.
Challenge: find the minimum distance between the bug and the screen such that the shadow moves at c. It will be a function of the bug’s walking speed.
-
Another: have a big move across a transparent plate. Shine a light on the bug and put a screen below it. You will see the shadow move across the screen. Now move the screen very far away. The shadow will be moving faster.
Challenge: find the minimum distance between the bug and the screen such that the shadow moves at c. It will be a function of the bug’s walking speed.
Oh my friend you disappoint me. ;D
I wondered if it was the lighthouse paradox though when you first mentioned it. I almost said "Yeah but you have to reddfine "thing" to be "A coincidence."
You could make it much simpler:
A light house flashes. Two observers, on opposite sides a hundred miles away, see the flash at exactly the same time.
The speed with which it got from one observer to the other is infinite.
Of course it's a joke because it's not that a thing moved faster than the speed of light, it's that multiple things left an origin, traveled at no more than the speed of light and arrived at different destinations simultaneously.
But I will grant that if you want to call a coincidence a thing (which really aint fair since a coincidence cannot be had without multiple things) and when you say that some thing can move faster than the speed of light it naturally leads the reader to think of a thing.
But I guess it's along the lines of if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, did it really fall?
-
Another: have a big move across a transparent plate. Shine a light on the bug and put a screen below it. You will see the shadow move across the screen. Now move the screen very far away. The shadow will be moving faster.
Challenge: find the minimum distance between the bug and the screen such that the shadow moves at c. It will be a function of the bug’s walking speed.
Oh my friend you disappoint me. ;D
I wondered if it was the lighthouse paradox though when you first mentioned it. I almost said "Yeah but you have to reddfine "thing" to be "A coincidence."
You could make it much simpler:
A light house flashes. Two observers, on opposite sides a hundred miles away, see the flash at exactly the same time.
The speed with which it got from one observer to the other is infinite.
Of course it's a joke because it's not that a thing moved faster than the speed of light, it's that multiple things left an origin, traveled at no more than the speed of light and arrived at different destinations simultaneously.
But I will grant that if you want to call a coincidence a thing (which really aint fair since a coincidence cannot be had without multiple things) and when you say that some thing can move faster than the speed of light it naturally leads the reader to think of a thing.
But I guess it's along the lines of if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, did it really fall?
It is strange that you think a shadow is a coincidence. Not sure I get that. Please feel free to enlighten me (although unlike Buddhist koans, my examples can be demonstrated mathematically).
I am certainly not disappointed in you, and fully expect that those functions will soon be forthcoming. :)
-
Your acknowledgement of zeteticism (https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism) is inaccurate.
Interesting. Wiki page you linked to says Samuel Rowbotham used this method, measuring the water convexity, and from that concluded on a shape.
I wonder if he really had no initial theory.
The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.
What does that even really mean?
I mean think about it. We always start with some theory which prompts us to do a specific experiment or observation. That doesn't rule out the validity of the results of the experiment or the observation.
So I'm really not sure even what you're trying to claim.
I don't think I ever said that the scientific method necessarily rules out the validity of the results of the experiment or observation. Zeteticism is preferable because, when one develops an idea of what ought to happen without truly knowing what will happen, it might cloud one's ability to accurately assess the experiment or observation. It might, it might not. Zeteticism seems, to me, to help counter that possibility; but, clearly, the scientific method works in many instances.
But it is very interesting that you say that zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory.
I have seen so much where flat earthers are digging like wolves to try and contort observed reality into their initial theory.
So here's the catch: While Einstein may have been zetetic and measured light and found that it's velocities does not add up that way, Mr. Bishop hasn't.
He didn't read Einstein's book and suddenly realize that light doesn't add up that way, he had a theory that required light to not add up that way, and went and found some possible experiments -- or at least someone else's musings -- which allegedly confirmed the prior theory.
And I'm not even sure Einstein even measured whether the velocities of light add up like that.
And if Albert didn't measure, and Bishop didn't measure -- no experiments done -- then I'm having a hard time seeing it as zetetic for Dr. Bishop to zetetically state that light velocities don't add up that way.
Well, I suppose that'd be a question for Bishop. Note: observation alongside experimentation is the cornerstone of zeteticism. I'm noticing a lack of reference to observation in some of your statements.
But picture this:
There's two race cars going 50 meters a second. They are 300,000,000 meters apart, but going parallel. On a big flat earth.
One of them shoots a pulsed laser cannon at the other. Right at him.
The only problem is that the light takes a second to get there. And by the time it gets there, the target has moved ahead 50 meters.
But it's a laser so he's not out of bullets yet, he stars aiming further and further forward.
He finds that he has to aim over 50 meters ahead of where his target is, in order for the light to intersect the target.
Now, this distance is actually longer than 300,000,000 meters because it's traversing the long side of a right triangle that is 50 by 300,000,000 meters.
Does the path length of light really not add up like that?
Again, I think that'd be a question for Bishop. I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with light velocities or how they're supposed to add up.
-
It is strange that you think a shadow is a coincidence. Not sure I get that. Please feel free to enlighten me (although unlike Buddhist koans, my examples can be demonstrated mathematically).
I am certainly not disappointed in you, and fully expect that those functions will soon be forthcoming. :)
My apologies. I was using the term in the technical sense, and assumed you had the background to know what I was talking about.
In Engineering, a coincidence is any time two things happen at the same time. That is to say, they coincide.
When a light flashes, and two different sectors of that light radiate out and reach their target at the same time, we say they coincide, or are coincident.
And it's not always even used in parallel settings: Sometimes two Geiger-Muller counter tubes are lined up and the signals are measured for coincidence - when a high speed particle smashes through one then through the other, the two signals coincide, and it is then believed that the direction of the particle is known. Even though the two signals coincided doesn't mean that it was pure chance that they happened around the same time because after all the same particle triggered them both -- so its not that random chance kind of coincidence - it's the kind of coincidence that just means they happened at the same time, or close enough for it to qualify for whatever special conditions were trying to be met (i.e. that the particle traveled in a straight line from one sensor tube to the other.)
So yes - if a light flashes and light waves go out in all directions and hit multiple targets at the same time you can't really say that anything was traveling faster than the speed of light.
If you change it slightly and say that the light hit target A slightly before target B, and try to say that the light went from target A to target B faster than the speed of light, then you're silly because the light doesn't come from target A to target B -- it goes to both targets from the light source -- and it does not travel faster than the speed of light.
Only by a contorted figurative wording can you say that a sweeping light beam sweeps faster than the speed of light.
Hopefully that makes a little more sense!
-
I am aware of the definition of coincidence. Yet the two examples I provided do not make use of this definition. I agree that your example fails, but my two examples hold to demonstrate cases where objects move faster than c. Surely you must see this.
-
I am aware of the definition of coincidence. Yet the two examples I provided do not make use of this definition. I agree that your example fails, but my two examples hold to demonstrate cases where objects move faster than c. Surely you must see this.
Oh I thought you were saying that the contact point of the wave hitting the shore was going faster than the speed of light, and that the bug's shadow was going faster than the speed of light.
And you're calling these two things objects.
But in fact, in the case of the bug, his shadow is not an object.
You might at least be able to say the light shining around the bug was an object, but that's not true either - it is an infinite number of light waves leaving a source and arriving at different destinations.
As the bug moves, light begins to shine in one area and stops shining in another area nearby -- but those were two beams of light, and two incidences that happened to coincide. But they were not the same object. A coincidence is not an object.
Same thing with the wave hitting the shore: No object is moving down the shore. The apparent contact point may be, but that is not an object.
The waves leaving the wave generator (whatever it was) are multiple paths of wave energy, traveling in different directions through different groups of water molecules, and arriving at different destinations.
When the wave hits the shore at point A and slightly later at point B, it is not an object moving, it is two incidences coinciding.
But nothing in your examples are moving faster than the speed of light.
-
Well, I have to disagree with you there. A shadow and location are both objects.
Plus, it is well known that phenomena in the universe are described using non local theories. Tachyons move faster than c, and the EPR paradox has been experimentally verified.
Einstein was just wrong. Many things obey causality, but not everything.
This issue with coincidences versus objects is just semantics.
-
Well, I have to disagree with you there. A shadow and location are both objects.
A shadow is an area in which a specific thing doesn't exist. How can the non-existence of something be an object? Never mind.
I must bow out of the discussion of whether a shadow and a location are objects because I would be trolling if I continued, and I've already been punished for expressing too much satire in the upper forums, even though the bulk of my posts were more serious than yours. ;D
-
Well, I have to disagree with you there. A shadow and location are both objects.
A shadow is an area in which a specific thing doesn't exist. How can the non-existence of something be an object? Never mind.
I must bow out of the discussion of whether a shadow and a location are objects because I would be trolling if I continued, and I've already been punished for expressing too much satire in the upper forums, even though the bulk of my posts were more serious than yours. ;D
I understand your decision, and will thus not state any more comments which you would not have the benefit of responding to. Thank you for the discussion.
-
Density not gravity.
Density trumps gravity so gravity is garbage.
If I through two balls out of a airplane they will both hit the earth at the same time but if one ball is a tennis ball and the other a iron ball and they hit water density will stop the tennis ball and the iron ball is gone bye bye.
Reason being density.
Hot air balloons rise because of density.
Apples fall from tree's because of density of the apple compared to the density of air.
-
Density not gravity.
Density trumps gravity so gravity is garbage.
If I through two balls out of a airplane they will both hit the earth at the same time but if one ball is a tennis ball and the other a iron ball and they hit water density will stop the tennis ball and the iron ball is gone bye bye.
Reason being density.
Hot air balloons rise because of density.
Apples fall from tree's because of density of the apple compared to the density of air.
So denser things move down. Why though? Can you elaborate?
Also, I highly doubt both balls would land at the same time. Even if they were identical.
But in a vacuum, a feather and iron ball will fall at the same rate. Which is strange, because their densities are so different. Any thoughts?
-
Gladly.
Density is related to the environment the objects are in.
Earths air (sky) is the environment in this case, then water and land.
Both balls are denser then air so both fall close to the same speed.
When they hit the water in a lake the water has a different density then the air so new laws apply.
Water density laws.
Tennis ball floats now but iron balls sink to the bottom of the lake.
Iron is much denser then water.
Then the iron ball hits the bottom of the lake and if it is soft mud or sand the iron ball being denser is heading father down till it hits its hard pack preventing it from going any further. It might take time wiggling down in the mud using currents but it will get there.
Gold miners follow this rule ever time in water ways.
There is a soil test that one can do to see how much clay, silt, sand and organic material you have.
Fill have a jar with your soil then top it with water, cap it shut and shake it for a bit then let it settle out.
Its density that separates the soil not gravity, other wise all materials will fall out of suspension at the same time not in layers.
Density trumps gravity so gravity doesn't exist.
Space isn't a vacuum. Space starts at 50 miles from earth to the ionosphere where the sun is.
But that is off topic.
-
Gladly.
Density is related to the environment the objects are in.
Earths air (sky) is the environment in this case, then water and land.
Both balls are denser then air so both fall close to the same speed.
When they hit the water in a lake the water has a different density then the air so new laws apply.
Water density laws.
Tennis ball floats now but iron balls sink to the bottom of the lake.
Iron is much denser then water.
Then the iron ball hits the bottom of the lake and if it is soft mud or sand the iron ball being denser is heading father down till it hits its hard pack preventing it from going any further. It might take time wiggling down in the mud using currents but it will get there.
Gold miners follow this rule ever time in water ways.
There is a soil test that one can do to see how much clay, silt, sand and organic material you have.
Fill have a jar with your soil then top it with water, cap it shut and shake it for a bit then let it settle out.
Its density that separates the soil not gravity, other wise all materials will fall out of suspension at the same time not in layers.
Density trumps gravity so gravity doesn't exist.
Space isn't a vacuum. Space starts at 50 miles from earth to the ionosphere where the sun is.
But that is off topic.
Hmm, water density laws. What are those?
Why does density arrange itself so that objects with larger values like to sink down relative to objects with lower values? I still don’t understand the mechanism.
Maybe the mechanism is explained in these water laws?
Thanks for your help!
-
Density laws.
0.179 kg/m3 Helium density
1.225 kg/m3 air density
997 kg/m³ water density
7 874 kg/m³ density of iron
Then there are displacement laws that can win over density like the shape of air plane wings and ships bottoms.
These laws have learned how to over come density issues.
-
Density laws.
0.179 kg/m3 Helium density
1.225 kg/m3 air density
997 kg/m³ water density
7 874 kg/m³ density of iron
Then there are displacement laws that can win over density like the shape of air plane wings and ships bottoms.
These laws have learned how to over come density issues.
Hmm. Those aren’t density “laws,” those are just densities. Like, the values of them. Laws are rules that explain how things will behave.
Do you have laws to accompany those numbers?
If you do, I’d also love to hear about the displacement laws as well.
-
Density laws.
0.179 kg/m3 Helium density
1.225 kg/m3 air density
997 kg/m³ water density
7 874 kg/m³ density of iron
Then there are displacement laws that can win over density like the shape of air plane wings and ships bottoms.
These laws have learned how to over come density issues.
Hmm. Those aren’t density “laws,” those are just densities. Like, the values of them. Laws are rules that explain how things will behave.
Do you have laws to accompany those numbers?
If you do, I’d also love to hear about the displacement laws as well.
Correct, the law of what goes up and what goes down based on the density of the atmosphere. Those are laws because they can't change.
They are an absolute. Its the rule.
Displacement laws with airplane wings and boats are easy to find on google.
Like the shape of the wing is design to have more air flowing over one side then the other to create lift etc.
-
Density laws.
0.179 kg/m3 Helium density
1.225 kg/m3 air density
997 kg/m³ water density
7 874 kg/m³ density of iron
Then there are displacement laws that can win over density like the shape of air plane wings and ships bottoms.
These laws have learned how to over come density issues.
Hmm. Those aren’t density “laws,” those are just densities. Like, the values of them. Laws are rules that explain how things will behave.
Do you have laws to accompany those numbers?
If you do, I’d also love to hear about the displacement laws as well.
Correct, the law of what goes up and what goes down based on the density of the atmosphere. Those are laws because they can't change.
They are an absolute. Its the rule.
Displacement laws with airplane wings and boats are easy to find on google.
Like the shape of the wing is design to have more air flowing over one side then the other to create lift etc.
But that law can’t be right, because I can violate that law very easily. A ball should be on the floor, because it is more dense than air. But I can throw it up into the sky, and it is then moving upward in violation of the law.
Is there some corollary that is added to this law to account for such cases?
-
But that law can’t be right, because I can violate that law very easily. A ball should be on the floor, because it is more dense than air. But I can throw it up into the sky, and it is then moving upward in violation of the law.
Is there some corollary that is added to this law to account for such cases?
Thrust just like a airplane motor and wing design.
With out thrust an air plane isn't moving.
With the ball once your thrust runs out it over.
No matter how hard you through your ball its coming back to the floor.
-
But that law can’t be right, because I can violate that law very easily. A ball should be on the floor, because it is more dense than air. But I can throw it up into the sky, and it is then moving upward in violation of the law.
Is there some corollary that is added to this law to account for such cases?
Thrust just like a airplane motor and wing design.
With out thrust an air plane isn't moving.
With the ball once your thrust runs out it over.
No matter how hard you through your ball its coming back to the floor.
Okay. What is thrust, exactly?
You see, I have two magnets. And I can suspend one of the magnets above the other, and it just stays there. I put guard rails on each side so that bumping the table doesn’t knock it off alignment. It has been this way for several years, in fact.
Is this also thrust? If so, what is “thrusting?” And will the thrust ever run out, or is this an exception to the law of density and the law of thrust?
-
Okay. What is thrust, exactly?
You see, I have two magnets. And I can suspend one of the magnets above the other, and it just stays there. I put guard rails on each side so that bumping the table doesn’t knock it off alignment. It has been this way for several years, in fact.
Is this also thrust? If so, what is “thrusting?” And will the thrust ever run out, or is this an exception to the law of density and the law of thrust?
Its a force. I will try to find this video about a magnet track that a guy made and says this is what holds the sun up.
-
Here it is.
Quantum locking of the electromagnetic field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=G9OTL-5eLT0
-
Here it is.
Quantum locking of the electromagnetic field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=G9OTL-5eLT0
A force! So this is yet a third term (law?). So there are densities, thrusts, and forces. Magnets make forces, everything else makes thrusts, and they both can fight against densities. Do I have this correct?
Here’s something that’s strange. When I turn a corner too fast in my car, I feel pushed outward. I also feel this way when on a merry-go-round. The only problem is that I cannot identify a magnet or anything thrusting on me. So what causes that? Is there yet a third thing that can fight against densities?
-
Here it is.
Quantum locking of the electromagnetic field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=G9OTL-5eLT0
A force! So this is yet a third term (law?). So there are densities, thrusts, and forces. Magnets make forces, everything else makes thrusts, and they both can fight against densities. Do I have this correct?
Here’s something that’s strange. When I turn a corner too fast in my car, I feel pushed outward. I also feel this way when on a merry-go-round. The only problem is that I cannot identify a magnet or anything thrusting on me. So what causes that? Is there yet a third thing that can fight against densities?
There are four known forces: nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetism, and gravity. Gravity has an asterisk next to it for a bunch of reasons.
The cornering "force" you're feeling is the seat belt pulling you in a new direction. You were going straight until the seat belt pulled you slightly to the side. If you keep turning, the seat belt keeps pulling you in the new direction.
-
Here it is.
Quantum locking of the electromagnetic field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=G9OTL-5eLT0
A force! So this is yet a third term (law?). So there are densities, thrusts, and forces. Magnets make forces, everything else makes thrusts, and they both can fight against densities. Do I have this correct?
Here’s something that’s strange. When I turn a corner too fast in my car, I feel pushed outward. I also feel this way when on a merry-go-round. The only problem is that I cannot identify a magnet or anything thrusting on me. So what causes that? Is there yet a third thing that can fight against densities?
There are four known forces: nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetism, and gravity. Gravity has an asterisk next to it for a bunch of reasons.
The cornering "force" you're feeling is the seat belt pulling you in a new direction. You were going straight until the seat belt pulled you slightly to the side. If you keep turning, the seat belt keeps pulling you in the new direction.
Yep. Except 2 of them have been unified into the electroweak force. Super symmetry unifies the electroweak with the strong force.
I dunno, it sure FEELS like there’s a force pushing me against the car door when I make a turn. You’re telling me that this force is really my inertia, and the feeling of a force is just the result of being in a non-inertial reference frame. Well that’s all nice and sciences and mathy, but my EXPERIENCE and FEELINGS don’t match your fancy words.
So which one of us is correct?
-
Yep. Except 2 of them have been unified into the electroweak force. Super symmetry unifies the electroweak with the strong force.
I dunno, it sure FEELS like there’s a force pushing me against the car door when I make a turn. You’re telling me that this force is really my inertia, and the feeling of a force is just the result of being in a non-inertial reference frame. Well that’s all nice and sciences and mathy, but my EXPERIENCE and FEELINGS don’t match your fancy words.
So which one of us is correct?
We both are!
We can measure and account for inertia in an accelerating reference frame.
And you can feel like it's a new force, based on what you imagine a new force might feel like.
That said, general relativity says there is no distinction between gravity and an accelerating reference frame, as I'm sure you're aware.
-
Yep. Except 2 of them have been unified into the electroweak force. Super symmetry unifies the electroweak with the strong force.
I dunno, it sure FEELS like there’s a force pushing me against the car door when I make a turn. You’re telling me that this force is really my inertia, and the feeling of a force is just the result of being in a non-inertial reference frame. Well that’s all nice and sciences and mathy, but my EXPERIENCE and FEELINGS don’t match your fancy words.
So which one of us is correct?
We both are!
We can measure and account for inertia in an accelerating reference frame.
And you can feel like it's a new force, based on what you imagine a new force might feel like.
That said, general relativity says there is no distinction between gravity and an accelerating reference frame, as I'm sure you're aware.
Almost. Fictitious forces are identified by non inertial frames, and do not follow from a potential. So in terms of the car example, YOU are actually correct. The seat produces a normal force on me. My feeling of being pressed to the side is a consequence of being in a rotating reference frame. I am not feeling the real force.
What GR says is that there is no experiment one can perform which can distinguish between gravity and an accelerating frame. It does not actually say they are equivalent.