The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TodaysPythagoras on April 28, 2019, 07:31:17 AM
-
If the earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared, then how come planes are able to take off or helicopters able to hover? Genuinely curious.
-
For the same reason that if the earth is spinning at 1000mph, planes and helicopters aren't instantly supersonic the moment they leave the surface.
-
"When you jump, your upward velocity is for a moment, greater than the Earth's so you rise above it. But after a few moments, the Earth's increasing velocity due to its acceleration eventually catches up." This would mean once a plane levels out at 36,000 ft, the Earth would eventually catch up to it. The plane never tilts up after its leveled out to compensate for the upward momentum of Earth. Therefore, according to the Flat Earth Society logic, the Earth would catch up to the plane.
-
Again, the air surrounding the aircraft is moving WITH the earth.
-
Then the same logic should apply when I jump. The air should be moving with the earth and I shouldn't hit the ground.
-
Yes, and now we are back to the point in the conversation where Tom and I left off.
An accelerating plane does not recreate the conditions we observe every day on a rotating globe.
-
Exactly. Logic dictates, by their own explanation, that a plane would be hit by the earth's upward momentum.
-
Then the same logic should apply when I jump. The air should be moving with the earth and I shouldn't hit the ground.
So you are the same as an aircraft? You have wings?
The reason you fall to earth is that you fall THROUGH the air that travels with the earth. An aircraft does not. It flies.
Exactly. Logic dictates, by their own explanation, that a plane would be hit by the earth's upward momentum.
Logic? Don't confuse your poor powers of reasoning with an irrefutable paradigm like logic. Logic means that all the relevant information is known to form a conclusion. You don't know your arse from your elbow. Junk in, junk out.
-
That is not what the flat earth society website says. I quote, "When you jump, your upward velocity is for a moment, greater than the Earth's so you rise above it. But after a few moments, the Earth's increasing velocity due to its acceleration eventually catches up." This doesn't say I fall through the air. It says the earth catches up to me.
-
Because you don't travel up with the earth and the air. An aircraft is designed to hold its altitude above the earth using those large things sicking out of either side. Aerospace professionals call them wings. ::)
-
They use the wings to maintain flight in a horizontal manner. Air travels under the wings to generate lift. This would mean they would need to adjust the plane upwards to compensate for the rising earth which they do not.
-
No, because the earth pushes the air up with it. This stops the earth leaving the air behind. If the air didn't get pushed up, all the air would be on the ground and you'd need to put your nose on the floor to breathe.
Again, the air is accelerating up at 9.8m/s as it is being pushed up by the earth. When stood on the ground, you are also being pushed up by the earth. But ... you are heavier than air, and so you fall through the air back to the ground when you leave it. This is because you are not a bird and buoyancy is a bitch.
Aircraft have wings. I can't believe I have had to write that 4 times already. And that means they have a way to maintain their altitude. But you do not have wings and you fall out of the sky. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to dumb this down any more for you, so put your finger on the screen and run it under the words saying them out loudly to give yourself a better chance of understanding.
-
If the earth is pushing the air up with it, then the air would all come down to the earth. If the air doesn't have it's own natural acceleration, then it cannot remain above the earth. If you wave your hand up air falls down the sides of it. This is what would happen in the scenario you just described.
-
If the air isn't pushing down on the Earth, then there is no force holding us to the ground. The air force down would be what holds us to the ground in your theory, but it can't if it's all moving up.
-
So why is the sea, not all squashed on the sea bed?
Oh, because a partial of sea water sits on another and on another and on another all the way from the sea floor to the surface. This means high pressure on the sea floor and lower pressure as you go up. The atmosphere is the same. Air is a fluid (hence why aerodynamics study fluid dynamics). Air sits on air sits on air with the air at the surface being at the highest pressure ... 1 atmosphere.
But you weigh more than air. You sink. You weigh less than sea water ... you float. If I put you on the sea bed, your rancid corpse would travel upwards. If I filled you full of helium and blew you up to about 20 meters across, you'd float upwards in the air.
Hot air balloons float. Lead weights do not. Aircraft have wings. They push air downwards and because of Newton's theory, therefore they go up.
-
If you are correct, then you need to contact the people who run the Flat Earth Society website because that isn't explained. Back to your argument anyways. Then an equivalent constant downward force around a sphere could hold the air on it without squishing water. In fact everything would remain as you described it.
-
The force of that gravitational pull would be able to hold everything around a sphere down until the force of the gravity is weakest. Once you've exited the gravitational pull from the spherical earth your in space.
-
One of two things happened there.
Either you have just written the most intelligent and brilliant thing ever uttered and I am not smart enough to understand it. Or we have plunged to new depths and I would be able to garner a more intelligent conversation from an ocean sponge. Either way, I am unable to adjust my IQ by the full 100 points in either direction required to be able to assist you any further.
-
This "rising up" Earth is totally non-sense, honestly. If we were, indeed, accelerating upwards, then we would experience constant winds coming down from above.
It's as simple as this, and TodaysPythagoras mentioned it. If you need to create exceptions to your rules without an explanation to do so, then your model is fluked.
-
This "rising up" Earth is totally non-sense, honestly. If we were, indeed, accelerating upwards, then we would experience constant winds coming down from above.
This is exactly like saying "if the earth is spinning at 1000mph, we would be unable to stand in the supersonic crosswinds.
As I said in my very first reply. You can't apply double standards. If its good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
-
This "rising up" Earth is totally non-sense, honestly. If we were, indeed, accelerating upwards, then we would experience constant winds coming down from above.
This is exactly like saying "if the earth is spinning at 1000mph, we would be unable to stand in the supersonic crosswinds.
As I said in my very first reply. You can't apply double standards. If its good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
Well then you'd admit that this theory is flawed then because we can't feel the 1000 mph crosswind and we can't feel your constant winds from above how can you claim to be smarter than us or right in any way.
-
No. The theory is sound because you are making an imaginary problem that doesn't exist regardless of whether the earth is round or flat.
-
If it was sound, then it would be a fact and not a theory. A theory implies that there are uncertain principles that can't yet be explained. Also it is not an imaginary argument. I'm using the information supplied by the Flat Earth Society. Nowhere on the website does it explain what you attempted to explain. That means one of two things: either this information you gave me is pure conjecture on your part or the Flat Earth Society is withholding information they have about the workings of the earth for no apparent reason. Now I would also like to point out at no point has any on this form insulted you or demeaned you in any way. This what you resort to because you dislike when people disagree with you beliefs. I kept an open mind and when you presented something that seemed incorrect to me, I questioned it. In no way did you offer the same respect. You couldn't have a logical debate because that would contradict what you believe in, so instead you insulted among your "facts."
-
Ooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
the principle applies to either theory and therefore we didn't include it, much like we don't feel we have to explain the existence of ducks on a flat earth.
-
So why is the sea, not all squashed on the sea bed?
Oh, because a partial of sea water sits on another and on another and on another all the way from the sea floor to the surface. This means high pressure on the sea floor and lower pressure as you go up. The atmosphere is the same. Air is a fluid (hence why aerodynamics study fluid dynamics). Air sits on air sits on air with the air at the surface being at the highest pressure ... 1 atmosphere.
But you weigh more than air. You sink. You weigh less than sea water ... you float. If I put you on the sea bed, your rancid corpse would travel upwards. If I filled you full of helium and blew you up to about 20 meters across, you'd float upwards in the air.
Hot air balloons float. Lead weights do not. Aircraft have wings. They push air downwards and because of Newton's theory, therefore they go up.
The sea is not squashed because it is an incompressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.
We are not applying a double standard here - truly we are not. Fluid dynamics has two branches: liquids and gases. What’s good for the liquid goose is NOT what’s good for the gas gander. Different rules apply that are consistent within each branch.
-
This "rising up" Earth is totally non-sense, honestly. If we were, indeed, accelerating upwards, then we would experience constant winds coming down from above.
This is exactly like saying "if the earth is spinning at 1000mph, we would be unable to stand in the supersonic crosswinds.
As I said in my very first reply. You can't apply double standards. If its good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.
Also, you guys love to use "1000mph" when talking about the Earth's rotation. But, have you ever spun a ball once a day? If you haven't, do it: you will see how slow its angular momentum is. It means that, although we are indeed moving at "1000mph" it is really slow due to the Earth's size.
-
The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.
The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.
Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.
We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.
-
The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.
The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.
Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.
We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.
Relativity has no relation to what we are talking about here. This is something Newton has described as "inertia" long before Einstein. You are right, though, there's no rate of change, no Delta, that's why we don't feel the "1000mph" crosswinds you said.
But, in order to account for gravity, you introduced a rate of change, a Delta, of 9.8 m/s² on Flat Earth's upward velocity. That is the problem, if it described reality, we would feel it.
In the Round Earth model, the Earth does not accelerate at all! And that's the reason we don't feel it.
Acceleration is, by definition, a rate of change in something's velocity, and thus, your explanation for gravity in the Flat Earth model is flawed.
-
This is like pulling teeth.
You do feel gravity. It pulls you to the floor.
The air is also accelerating as it is pushed up with the earth, so you don't feel wind. Where would the wind take the air? It goes with the earth. Like a truck pushing a plow.
-
This is like pulling teeth.
You do feel gravity. It pulls you to the floor.
The air is also accelerating as it is pushed up with the earth, so you don't feel wind. Where would the wind take the air? It goes with the earth. Like a truck pushing a plow.
You feel gravity's acceleration when you're in the air, so you end up falling back to ground. When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration. And that is the point! Should we live in the model you are proposing, the opposite would happen: you would feel acceleration when staying on the ground and wouldn't feel it while on air until Earth catches you up.
Could you, please, explain how Zero-G airplane flights would work on that model of yours?
-
I don't need to explain it. Einstien already explained it. You just need to read up on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
-
I don't need to explain it. Einstien already explained it. You just need to read up on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Wait, how dare you use relativity to deny gravity? What is your point, here? If you believe the Earth is flat, then you must deny relativity, as these two are incompatible with each other.
Actually, if you do believe in both, relativity brings much bigger problems to the Flat Earth even before we can start to think about winds... Therefore, all I am talking about in this thread is related to Newton's work, which can easily be proven in our daily life, and thus cannot be denied. Relativity, on the other hand, is harder to get a grasp on.
-
I don't need to explain it. Einstien already explained it. You just need to read up on it.
Yes, both sides should read up on it:
An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected.
-
I would just like to point out that "heavy" objects don't necessarily sink. Buoyancy is not directly coupled to the weight of an object. It is directly related to density and volume. Not exactly the same thing.
For instance, I don't float well. Why? I have very little body fat. But I don't weigh much. There are extremely fat people who float very well compared to me. So you're reasoning that heavy objects sink and lighter ones float is incorrect.
-
The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.
The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.
Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.
We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.
Umm, red herring? I was directly answering your question. I am happy to discuss densities with you and how that accounts for things floating or sinking in fluids - also there is a third option: neutrally buoyant.
Also, your description above has nothing to do with relativity. Literally at all.
If the surrounding environment is experiencing UA, then if I jump into the air, and become part of the surrounding environment, why do I fall down?
This is a contradiction in the proposal of UA that has not been satisfactory addressed, and until it is, UA actually violates the equivalence principle.
-
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.
Wowa, wait a minute. When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor. I feel it very much. Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it. Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.
-
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.
Wowa, wait a minute. When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor. I feel it very much. Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it. Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.
Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.
-
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.
Wowa, wait a minute. When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor. I feel it very much. Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it. Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.
Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.
This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.
When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.
We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.
I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.
But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.
FEers take loose definitions and create chaos.
-
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.
Wowa, wait a minute. When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor. I feel it very much. Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it. Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.
Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.
This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.
When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.
We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.
I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.
But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.
FEers take loose definitions and create chaos.
You are right in doing so. I'm no specialist in physics (I'm a Computer Scientist/Software Engineer) and thus my writing in the subject may not be as rigorous as it should be.
What I meant by "feel acceleration" is the human perception, or body sensation, of being accelerated.
So I presumed that, if the Earth were constantly accelerating "upwards", we would never reach an inertial frame of reference in relation to Earth. It seems to me, that normal force would not keep up with this earthly acceleration, and thus we would "feel" the Earth accelerating. Am I right?
-
This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.
When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.
We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.
I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.
But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.
Lets go in parts. Some lights over the issue?
First, gravity is not a force, acceleration is, it takes energy from nothing. Yes, I know, but wait.
Gravity is a sliding condition of any mass towards a deformation of space. The deformation can be caused by different reasons, one very well know is the presence of any mass in space, it deforms space towards its center of mass, larger the mass, larger the deformation.
What do you mean by "normal force" counteracting your weight? Is there any counterpart abnormal force?
And no, without any acceleration you will not whatsoever feel any "force" or pressure against your body.
And no, when you slide in the space deformation, that you say "falling", and I assume you are saying falling from an airplane for example, you never feel any force or any acceleration, in true, when you free fall is exactly when the sliding counter balance any other possible holding or suspension, and you feel absolutely nothing. Ask any skydiver about what they feel when falling, nothing, just the air flowing against their bodies, nothing less, the body (mass) is in pure free form of freedom, all organs accommodate inside the body, without compressing each other, all the limbs relax, even your blood flow becomes easier and you feel euphoric since your brain receives better blood flow and oxygenation. I have several friends skydivers, the sensation they present is that they are completely stopped and the ground rushes towards them, no other way around. They say that when the parachute opens, it is like a strong force just push you up in a tremendous jolt and speed.
(https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/877x500p/s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/contentlab.studiod/getty/a04027ca0a924c3bb0d45c97b5d82700)
There is also a new definition about kinetic energy applied to a mass in space. What always make scientists accept with reluctance, is the definition that a vector force of movement can only be deformed by another vector force (kinetic vector). Accepting is one thing, understand the basics principles is another thing. In a large void of space, a steady mass (almost impossible to exist) has space deformation all around it, balanced by itself to the center of such mass. This deformation makes the mass itself to try to slide towards its center, and it compresses itself to do it. This is basically the accretion process that converts nebulas into stars, planets, etc, and what makes piles of rubble and dust in enough size to become a ball in space. But that mass is a piece of rock, can not compress itself anymore, so it is there, steady, doing nothing, with a space deformation balanced around. Then came a smaller rock in high speed and bounces this original rock. Kinetic energy is transferred to the original rock, it deform the steady vectors inside and it protrudes with some amplitude to the impacting vector direction, creating a momentum in the center of mass that changes from the center. This movement also pushes the space deformation along, and now it is not balanced anymore, there is a sliding deformation towards the resulting kinetic vector, but as the original mass was completely stopped and balanced, the deformation will be towards the same direction of movement of the impacting small rock. This unbalanced deformation will allow the original rock to slide into that less dense space, the original rock moves. When it moves, its internal vector moves along, and it becomes an infinite cycle, rock slides, vector moves, space deformation moves, rock slides, forever. This will continue for eternity, until another kinetic vector interferes or another mass space deformation adds sliding conditions to this rock, so it can change path. This new theory may explain things we never really understood, and may explain why everything in the universe is in motion. It also explains how photons with no mass, can change direction under sliding conditions, what we were calling "momentum" for many years. It is exactly the "momentum" that is a little bit off-center and creates this effect. The amount of sliding force in a regular mass is proportional to the mass, the speed it moves is proportional to how much off-center the "momentum" is set. Photons travel at speed of light because their no-mass condition allows very little energy to create a large off-center momentum, when compared to its infinite small own space deformation in its wave interior, it moves at fantastic speed, and that is constant, in a regular space you can not speed up or break up photons. You can change the time it takes to travel a certain distance if changing the space medium, like traveling in glass, water or gas, for example. But the photon speed is the same, it just takes more time to bounce around and reach its destination. The side of the wave that first find a denser medium will increase the time for travel, what for us, appears as a change in angle of insertion towards that side and angle. It is incredible how we humans could find formulas to predict exactly this very complicated energy wave distortion, not knowing how exactly it happens, we think we know what a photon is.
(http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/gravity-1.jpg)
So, your "gravity acceleration" is a little more complicated, we are changing the way we see it, trying to find better explanations for everything else, and actually a sliding condition based on space density changes is promising better understanding, without altering what Einstein predicted.
The best way for humans to understanding it, is as the space is a gel, denser water, our bodies change the density of such gel very close to our skin, and small particles tend to slide towards our skin and stick to it. When we move inside this water or gel, we are moving very little this space deformation ahead of us, like a force field, and we can easily slide into this less dense gel. Also, because the center of momentum or deformation is more pronounced to the direction of our movement, our back has less deformation and the gel on the back compress and pushes us forward, what make us move in that direction forever, if no other vector could interfere and change such condition.
Our brain is slowly trying to understand what it can not, so we simplify things to make our life easier.
At the top I wrote "takes energy from nothing".
(https://img.newatlas.com/asteroid-families-1.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&rect=0%2C203%2C1000%2C563&w=616&s=5e63529b06d83940e5cffc52df351fdb)
Think about two big, huge rocks in void space, steady state, no moving at all, one thousand light year from another. Both has its own space deformation balanced to their centers, no moving. But there is an itchy condition between them, very far away and very little. The space deformation of one is interfering with the sliding situation of the other, this micron off-center movement of the deformation, causes they to start to slide one to another very slowly, microns per thousand years. This sliding situation transport the space deformation along, what increases the sliding speed between them. After a billion years, perhaps, they will pack a kinetic energy (momentum) almost impossible to describe, and at some point they will colide one to another. The packed energy would be so large, the mass compression will be unimaginable, they would fuse their atoms one to another, even creating different heavy elements, radiation in wide spectrum to shine a galaxy, and something else. But they were only rock, big yes, but nothing else, the energy released could even be larger than mc². They were picking speed and packing energy along the way, but from where? The answer is: From nothing.
-
Whoa, just hold on a second. You need to parse these ideas in smaller, more manageable discussable chunks. We can’t have a good online discussion otherwise - it becomes impractical to address everything as it tangents off from a wall of text.
Let me reorganise a bit, and please reply with your thoughts again.
1. Gravity as a force vs gravity as a deformation of space time.
Okay. The two don’t work in the same discussion together. We can talk about Newtonian gravity, which works well in the regime of the weak field limit. That is, GR reduces to Newton very well on the surface of the earth.
The normal force is the Newton’s 3rd law pair. When I stand on the ground, the gravitational force acts down. So why don’t I move down? Cause the ground is there. Obviously. But since f=ma and my a is zero when standing, there must be a force which counteracts gravity. That is the normal force. It is the force of the ground on me that stops me sinking through it.
What I feel is THAT force. Same thing when you take a turn too quickly. You feel pushed up against the side of the car. You are feeling the normal force from the side of the car.
Okay. That is what you feel. You don’t really feel your weight much. But this is more psychological in nature - what you feel vs what is actually happening.
2. GR. So it’s hard to parse your GR discussion. Understand the geometry of spacetime is very very difficult, and solving the equations for how this geometry warps in the vicinity of mass is even harder. I have never heard these terms of packed energy and kinetic vectors in my study of GR. The objects we really to discuss are metrics, Riemann curvature tensors, stress-energy tensors, and cristoffel symbols. But I don’t know if a forum will suffice for delving deeply into these concepts - the math really is prohibitively difficult.
-
Whoa, just hold on a second. You need to parse these ideas in smaller, more manageable discussable chunks. We can’t have a good online discussion otherwise - it becomes impractical to address everything as it tangents off from a wall of text.
Let me reorganise a bit, and please reply with your thoughts again.
1. Gravity as a force vs gravity as a deformation of space time.
Okay. The two don’t work in the same discussion together. We can talk about Newtonian gravity, which works well in the regime of the weak field limit. That is, GR reduces to Newton very well on the surface of the earth.
The normal force is the Newton’s 3rd law pair. When I stand on the ground, the gravitational force acts down. So why don’t I move down? Cause the ground is there. Obviously. But since f=ma and my a is zero when standing, there must be a force which counteracts gravity. That is the normal force. It is the force of the ground on me that stops me sinking through it.
What keeps you on your feet while standing over a concrete slab? It is not any "normal force", it is purely density of mass holding your sliding toward the space deformation. Of course that if you relax your muscles you will fall over the concrete, space deformation will slide you down, if the soil under the concrete slab becomes less dense, it will slide sinking into the soil (Florida have several sink holes to prove it). The sliding vector is always present, trying to move you towards the stronger deformation, there is no way to avoid it. There is no force at all, there is only space deformation, less dense property of the space.
There is no force holding the book over the table, the space deformation generated by the huge mass of the planet is trying to slide the book down, but the table is just holding it there. A "force" require some energy in first place. One explanation of force: "strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement". Now, think the whole planet and all over it, including the table and the book were in space floating, very apart, by molecules, and slowing all of it slide towards a common center with little space with less density, it took millions of years to do that. Where that huge "force" that pushed everything together comes from? what about the huge force that holds all the tectonic plates over the melting ball of lava comes from? What generated such huge amount of energy? It is much easier to think about a space density becoming smaller, mass sliding towards where it is less dense, some mass can't go ahead because something is in the way, a table for example.
"Force" is a simple and easy way to explain in layman terms what we barely understand.
I hear it everyday, "the force of gravity"... it is not.
Force is when I push a chair, there is a muscle mechanic action, based on energy, it promotes a new vector to the balanced space around the chair, it moves. That is force, because it was not there before, it was generated, used and converted. A car's engine piston moves by the force of the fuel exploding, such energy can be wasted. Gravity is not generated, imposed, used or wasted, you can not, because it is not a force. You can convert the potential energy stored in the hydroelectric water, but it is not a force offered by gravity. The solar energy evaporated all that water and transferred energy to it - well, not really, the water didn't change, you can not measure such energy, but it is there, in a "potential" way, it means, "it potentially can be used". Gravity is just the slider where the water runs and allows the turbines and generators to extract such energy. Gravity sliding action will still the same after the water energy is collected, before, while and after. If it can not be changed, converted or wasted, it is not a force.
Cheers.
-
Whoa, just hold on a second. You need to parse these ideas in smaller, more manageable discussable chunks. We can’t have a good online discussion otherwise - it becomes impractical to address everything as it tangents off from a wall of text.
Let me reorganise a bit, and please reply with your thoughts again.
1. Gravity as a force vs gravity as a deformation of space time.
Okay. The two don’t work in the same discussion together. We can talk about Newtonian gravity, which works well in the regime of the weak field limit. That is, GR reduces to Newton very well on the surface of the earth.
The normal force is the Newton’s 3rd law pair. When I stand on the ground, the gravitational force acts down. So why don’t I move down? Cause the ground is there. Obviously. But since f=ma and my a is zero when standing, there must be a force which counteracts gravity. That is the normal force. It is the force of the ground on me that stops me sinking through it.
What keeps you on your feet while standing over a concrete slab? It is not any "normal force", it is purely density of mass holding your sliding toward the space deformation. Of course that if you relax your muscles you will fall over the concrete, space deformation will slide you down, if the soil under the concrete slab becomes less dense, it will slide sinking into the soil (Florida have several sink holes to prove it). The sliding vector is always present, trying to move you towards the stronger deformation, there is no way to avoid it. There is no force at all, there is only space deformation, less dense property of the space.
There is no force holding the book over the table, the space deformation generated by the huge mass of the planet is trying to slide the book down, but the table is just holding it there. A "force" require some energy in first place. One explanation of force: "strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement". Now, think the whole planet and all over it, including the table and the book were in space floating, very apart, by molecules, and slowing all of it slide towards a common center with little space with less density, it took millions of years to do that. Where that huge "force" that pushed everything together comes from? what about the huge force that holds all the tectonic plates over the melting ball of lava comes from? What generated such huge amount of energy? It is much easier to think about a space density becoming smaller, mass sliding towards where it is less dense, some mass can't go ahead because something is in the way, a table for example.
"Force" is a simple and easy way to explain in layman terms what we barely understand.
I hear it everyday, "the force of gravity"... it is not.
Force is when I push a chair, there is a muscle mechanic action, based on energy, it promotes a new vector to the balanced space around the chair, it moves. That is force, because it was not there before, it was generated, used and converted. A car's engine piston moves by the force of the fuel exploding, such energy can be wasted. Gravity is not generated, imposed, used or wasted, you can not, because it is not a force. You can convert the potential energy stored in the hydroelectric water, but it is not a force offered by gravity. The solar energy evaporated all that water and transferred energy to it - well, not really, the water didn't change, you can not measure such energy, but it is there, in a "potential" way, it means, "it potentially can be used". Gravity is just the slider where the water runs and allows the turbines and generators to extract such energy. Gravity sliding action will still the same after the water energy is collected, before, while and after. If it can not be changed, converted or wasted, it is not a force.
Cheers.
This does not accord with any accepted description in physics.
What keeps you on your feet in a space station that simulates gravity through centripetal rotation? The normal force.
Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.
Potential energy does not mean it potentially can be used. Potential energy is the energy associated with specific configurations within a system. Some potential energies are not accessible for mechanical work.
You will not find “muscle mechanic action based on energy” in any physics textbook on the planet. It sounds to me like you are making stuff up.
-
It has been measured that objects weigh less at the top of a mountain than at sea level. If the earth was accelerating upwards there should be no change in weight. How dos the flat earth model explain this?
-
Some FE models introduce the concept of celestial gravitation where the heavenly bodies influence the weight of objects as they get higher.
-
I mean, conceptually, if you accepted the premise of UA, a flat earth, and celestial gravitation, it would make sense that as you get closer to a celestial object that it may have some sort of gravitational pull on you. I mean, I think even FE accepts that the moon has some effect on the tide, correct? But if this was correct, then gravity anomaly differences would be consistent across all altitudes and locations (x,y or lat and long) - meaning the higher you go the bigger the effect, no matter what mountain you are on. However, this has been demonstrated to be false. It is not consistent. And is in fact due to multiple factors. Read up on the Bouguer anomaly and how rock density also effects the gravity anomaly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouguer_anomaly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly
So while we may conceded that there is some sort of celestial gravitation (given that we see this with the moon), it is also dependent on features within the terrain - and therefore is further evidence for a spherical earth having gravity. UA would not be able to explain this (aka it cant have trouble pushing through denser rock, if it is pushing the entire flat earth at the same time).
-
Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.
You are confusing "gravity as a force", because you are thinking it is gravity what causes the water to slide down through the hydroelectric turbines, it is not. Gravity offers the way for that to happens, but it is the free sliding of the water through a less dense space that cause the turbines to rotate. No gravity is wasted, used, consumed, in the process. The energy conversion to electricity comes from the water movement, once it moved, there is no more energy to be absorbed, so, the energy was in the water, promoted by the solar radiation creating water evaporation, not in the gravity.
You can not reuse the energy in the gasoline that creates the explosion inside the piston in the Otto engine. When the energy is converted, it is done. You can turn blue trying to convince people that was the piston pressure that created the explosion, but no, it was not. The piston pressure created the ideal environment for a compressed fuel and oxidizer to reach a favorable situation for an explosion, a spark initiate that, on diesel not even spark. See, the piston pressure will serve for nothing without those energy packing elements. The energy acquired in an Otto engine, is directly obtained from the fuel's energy.
This is exactly why perpetual machines doesn't work, it can be based on gravity, magnetic, whatever. The energy to be produced from the perpetual machine can not be extracted from gravity or magnetic, they can not be the main supplier for such energy, they just are used as part of the environment where the energy can be converted from another force, mostly mechanical, but such force is in fact the ones providing the energy to be converted.
An electric generator is a good example. It has magnets, coils, rotating parts, contact collars, etc, it uses the known law of pushing electrons flow into an electric conductor when it crosses magnetic field lines. But see, it needs to be "crossing" magnetic field lines, a stationary copper wire in middle of those steady lines generates nothing. Even with the most gigantic magnet close to the wire generates absolutely nothing. The mechanical movement of the wire (or the magnet) does it, and to do so, it needs an external force, a movement, a job, that will finally convert energy from one form to another. It is not the magnet that does it, the magnet does not contain such force or energy. The magnet is what creates the right environment for such conversion to take place. See, when the wire crosses the magnetic line fields, what is converted is the energy from the movement force, it is wasted, converted, it disappears after that and appears in the form of electricity. The magnet never change its magnetic fields, it does not become weak, change, move, or become wasted, because it IS NOT used in the process. Exactly like gravity.
-
Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.
Of course "gravity" can be generated, you can convert energy into mass, that mass will promote space deformation, thus, sliding vectors toward the center of such deformation, where space is less dense. But that is it.
But sorry, you can not measure gravity, there is no over the counter equipment to do it, what you may be thinking is that we can measure the sliding vector of a mass towards another, using a common bathroom scale, that layman terms known as "weight". That is not a gravity measurement device, sorry. See, photons have no mass, but they have momentum, that can allow them to slide through the space deformation and change path. You can use a zillion photons over the bathroom scale and obtain no measurement whatsoever caused by "gravity". If I say to you that my "weight" is 80kg on the bathroom scale, how you calculate the "gravity force", or "gravity acceleration" from that number? You can't. You need to know my mass and my altitude first, and then what planet I am. So, it is not gravity you are measuring on that scale, it is my mass sliding through the space deformation caused by the planet. You need my mass in order to calculate the sliding vector, without it, you have no "gravity force" indication.
The same as when you measure the blacksmith's hammer "hitting force" on the iron. The hammer has no force or energy whatsoever, it is the arm of the blacksmith that applies mechanical motion vector to the hammer against the iron. You can not use or say "hammer hitting force", because there is none, even that you can in fact measure it.
-
Hello, I saw yesterday that THE_Earth_is_a_cube made a post and was recently banned. I have a genuine question. First, you claim that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that Earth moves upwards at 9.8m/s^2. If this is true, How would we have enough mass to support the orbit of every other planet and mass that goes around us? Take this opinion with a grain of salt, but I believe the Earth could resemble a torus. We have already discovered a mass like this, Llone 9UM. It is approximately 2.8 million light years away from Earth. It was taken from the apparent Hubble telescope. With all due respect with your theories, what could be a problem with this? Thank you very much.
-
Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.
Of course "gravity" can be generated, you can convert energy into mass, that mass will promote space deformation, thus, sliding vectors toward the center of such deformation, where space is less dense. But that is it.
But sorry, you can not measure gravity, there is no over the counter equipment to do it, what you may be thinking is that we can measure the sliding vector of a mass towards another, using a common bathroom scale, that layman terms known as "weight". That is not a gravity measurement device, sorry. See, photons have no mass, but they have momentum, that can allow them to slide through the space deformation and change path. You can use a zillion photons over the bathroom scale and obtain no measurement whatsoever caused by "gravity". If I say to you that my "weight" is 80kg on the bathroom scale, how you calculate the "gravity force", or "gravity acceleration" from that number? You can't. You need to know my mass and my altitude first, and then what planet I am. So, it is not gravity you are measuring on that scale, it is my mass sliding through the space deformation caused by the planet. You need my mass in order to calculate the sliding vector, without it, you have no "gravity force" indication.
The same as when you measure the blacksmith's hammer "hitting force" on the iron. The hammer has no force or energy whatsoever, it is the arm of the blacksmith that applies mechanical motion vector to the hammer against the iron. You can not use or say "hammer hitting force", because there is none, even that you can in fact measure it.
Sliding vector is a word you just made up.
There are other ways to generate gravity which we have measured.
Cavendish experiments can be made from over the counter equipment.
Weight is not a laymen term, it is a technical term in physics that is defined as the contact force between a massive object and the object which is applying a normal force against it.
Your weight is not 80kg, that is your mass. Your corresponding weight is about 800N. That is how you calculate it. It is the magnitude of the local gravitational force on you. The gravitational acceleration is found by taking your weight and divisions by your mass.
Look, all these things are taught in high school physics.
I’m trying to read your reply to give you credit for the correct things you’ve written. I am a little shocked, and not exaggerating here, that it doesn’t appear that anything you wrote is correct.
I have to wonder if you are trolling me right now. That is not sarcasm BTW, it is honest. Almost every FEer I speak with always says at least some things correctly.
-
Your weight is not 80kg, that is your mass. Your corresponding weight is about 800N. That is how you calculate it. It is the magnitude of the local gravitational force on you. The gravitational acceleration is found by taking your weight and divisions by your mass.
Again, gravity is not a force, it is a sliding vector (you will be reading more and more about it, pay attention).
By the way, in Brazil we started to learn physics right at the first semester of middle school, not high school.
Also, if you think gravity IS a force, you are first going against Albert Einstein (Nobel prize in physics), Carl Sagan, and several other astrophysicists, good luck on that.
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass. The most extreme example of this curvature of spacetime is a black hole, from which nothing—not even light—can escape once past the black hole's event horizon.[3] However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force which causes any two bodies to be attracted to each other, with the force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
But we now understand that gravity as a force is only part of a more complex phenomenon described the theory of general relativity. While general relativity is an elegant theory, it’s a radical departure from the idea of gravity as a force. As Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and Einstein’s theory is a very extraordinary claim. But it turns out there are several extraordinary experiments that confirm the curvature of space and time.
===
A body undergoing geodesic motion feels no forces acting upon itself. It is just following what it feels to be a "downward slope through spacetime" (this is how the bending affects the motion of an object). The particular geodesic an object wants to follow is dependent upon its velocity, but perhaps surprisingly, not its mass (unless it is massless, in which case its velocity is exactly the speed of light). There are no forces acting upon that body; we say this body is in freefall. Gravity is not acting as a force.
Dr Jolyon Bloomfield
===
Einstein’s discovery was based on a series of thought experiments. Consider an astronaut floating in space, away from any source of gravity, and that same astronaut free falling in a planet’s gravity. The similarity of both experiences is uncanny. The astronaut must glide or sit still until affected by an external force. If an astronaut falls or floats without any knowledge of his location, say, in an enclosed lift, he cannot distinguish whether the lift is floating in deep space or through a building on Earth. In both cases, he is essentially weightless. However, if he does not experience any force, why does a free-falling astronaut accelerate? In Newtonian mechanics, this is paradoxical, as it contradicts Newton’s second law of motion – the magnitude of acceleration is proportional to the applied external force.
Einstein suggested that objects aren’t pulled by massive objects, but rather pushed down by the space above them. According to General Relativity, matter warps the fabric of not only space but time as well, collectively known as the continuum of space-time. The fabric is like a grid of tightly strung rubber bands; when a massive object pushes and stretches them downward, the deformed rubber bands push objects under them. The theory implied that smaller objects weren’t pulled towards massive objects but were traveling on a downward slope, as the space in the latter’s vicinity was warped by its large mass. A free-falling body, therefore, follows the straightest possible path in space-time.
Einstein developed this theory on the assumption that the laws of physics must appear the same to every observer. This is also true for planets revolving around the Sun. Orbiting planets follow the shortest path around the Sun to minimize energy. This path is an ellipse, the most efficient path in the gravity well of the Sun… but what about the astronaut’s acceleration?
Einstein’s geodesic equations signify that acceleration is a product of curved space-time. His equation explains how curvature accelerates a falling object. In the absence of curvature, the body would move in a straight line with a constant velocity, unless this motion would be disrupted by an otherwise external force. However, the most interesting aspect of the equation is the absence of mass in its expression. The magnitude of acceleration is independent of the falling body, just as the equivalence principle would demand (if you drop a hammer and a feather on the surface of the moon, they would drop at the same time).
Akash Peshin
===
Albert Einstein, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, contributed an alternate theory of gravity in the early 1900s. It was part of his famous General Theory of Relativity, and it offered a very different explanation from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Einstein didn't believe gravity was a force at all; he said it was a distortion in the shape of space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension" (see How Special Relativity Works to learn about space-time).
Basic physics states that if there are no external forces at work, an object will always travel in the straightest possible line. Accordingly, without an external force, two objects travelling along parallel paths will always remain parallel. They will never meet.
-
Thank you for the detailed summary. I look forward to learning more from your expertise. If I may, might I ask some follow up questions? I think what you wrote is all a bit over my head, and I’m hoping you can clarify some items for me :)
1. Can you please provide a mathematical definition for sliding vector? Just an equation, no words.
2. It seems to me that general relativity and Lagrangian dynamics are not mutually exclusive. I can take Einstein’s field equations, and under the weak field limit, derive lagrangian dynamics for an object in a gravitational field. So even though GR is more widely applicable than classical dynamics, it appears that Einstein’s very own equations support a force interpretation for gravity in the weak field limit. Hence, I am not contradicting Einstein. Here is my question:
Beginning with Einstein’s field equations, can you please demonstrate that lagrangian dynamics are in fact incompatible in this limit? This would be a proof by contradiction, and would provide evidence for your claim.
3. Carl Sagan believed the earth was round. Do you?
4. Beginning with Einstein’s field equations, it can be shown that parallel lines can either stay parallel, converge, or diverge depending on a particular term in the equations. Do you know what this term is and what it’s geometrical interpretation is?
5. Einstein’s field equations are absent of mass/energy only in a particular limiting case. In this limiting case a specific object in the equations is negligible. Do you know what this object is?
I look forward to your replies :)
-
Of course I could answer your questions, with pleasure.
Problem is, I am not here to waste my precious time (and I am old, no much time to waste) teaching physics, mostly just to show my knowledge, this is not a competition, sorry, the time of my life to show a bigger stick is gone long ago. My intention here is to clarify issues about flat earth. It is clear that this discussion will go on and on, and it is not the scope of this forum, so research yourself about space deformity by mass and sliding vectors.
Gravity is not a force - Albert Einstein said that, who am I to go against it?
I wonder if someone could demonstrate force without energy being applied.
For the ones wanting to learn about sliding vectors, I present you Einstein's Field Equation formula:
(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/metal-print/16.000/6.000/break/images-medium-5/einstein-field-equation-science-photo-library.jpg)
Sorry moderators, I stop here.
Cheers.
-
Of course I could answer your questions, with pleasure.
Problem is, I am not here to waste my precious time (and I am old, no much time to waste) teaching physics, mostly just to show my knowledge, this is not a competition, sorry, the time of my life to show a bigger stick is gone long ago. My intention here is to clarify issues about flat earth. It is clear that this discussion will go on and on, and it is not the scope of this forum, so research yourself about space deformity by mass and sliding vectors.
Gravity is not a force - Albert Einstein said that, who am I to go against it?
I wonder if someone could demonstrate force without energy being applied.
For the ones wanting to learn about sliding vectors, I present you Einstein's Field Equation formula:
(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/metal-print/16.000/6.000/break/images-medium-5/einstein-field-equation-science-photo-library.jpg)
Sorry moderators, I stop here.
Cheers.
Einstein also said “god does not play dice,” in objection to the destruction of determinism by quantum mechanics. He was wrong. In fact, it is quite clear the GR is either incomplete or incorrect. You will not find a professional physicist alive who fails to recognize this if prompted.
Readers: if interested, google a quantum theory of gravity, TOE, or grand unification.
I appreciate you at least posting “Einstein’s field equation formula,” but it is not singular, and in fact represents 16 coupled differential equations.
It is interesting that you have decided to stop “wasting your time” at the precise moment when I ask you basic questions regarding the knowledge you claim to have - but so far described it inaccurately. Especially when the answers you could have provided would have been to the educational benefit of readers.
Lastly, the field equations are not a good reference for those wishing to study sliding vectors. Clearly, you do not understand the role these objects play in GR.
Why don’t you leave the physics to me. I am happy to “waste my time” educating others. And it appears I may be better suited to provide it accurately.
Readers: if you are interested in learning about sliding vectors, then I recommend googling affine vector spaces, and then covariant and contravariant derivatives. Sliding vectors do not directly appear in Einstein’s field equations.
-
Some FE models introduce the concept of celestial gravitation where the heavenly bodies influence the weight of objects as they get higher.
I'm assuming that celestial gravitation is from the moon and sun. How far away are they on a FE model?
Also if the earth is accelerating upwards, what is making the sun and moon accelerate upwards too?
-
Some FE models introduce the concept of celestial gravitation where the heavenly bodies influence the weight of objects as they get higher.
I'm assuming that celestial gravitation is from the moon and sun. How far away are they on a FE model?
Estimates vary depending on the model, but about 3000 miles is the most common answer.
Also if the earth is accelerating upwards, what is making the sun and moon accelerate upwards too?
The same universal accelerator that accelerates the flat earth upwards is believed to accelerate the sun, moon and other celestial bodies at the same rate (hence the term "universal").
-
I prove gravity real in this topic:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14694.0
-
I prove gravity real in this topic:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14694.0
While I agree that your link establishes multiple points that FEers have so far not addressed, it is too ambitious to state that this “proves” the earth is round.
This is because your conclusion relies on an argument from ignorance fallacy: “it just doesn’t add up.”
One must demonstrate the impossibility rather than saying “I can’t think how it’s possible therefore it isn’t.”
I believe if you fleshed it out a bit more you’d have a very solid piece of argumentation there, as it already contains several strong points.