The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MythBuster on December 22, 2017, 04:24:43 PM
-
Disproving the existence of UA is simple. According to FET, the Earth is accelerating at a constant rate of 9.82 m/sec^2. Therefore, to calculate the Earth's current velocity, we need only multiply the given rate of acceleration by the Earth's age in seconds. If we accept the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and we assume it began accelerating immediately, then the Earth's age in seconds is roughly (4.5*10^9)*365*24*60*60, or 1.419*10^17 seconds old (141,912,000,000,000,000 seconds). Now multiply that by 9.82 for the current velocity in m/sec for 1.39*10^18 m/sec (1,393,575,840,000,000,000 m/sec). The speed of light is approximately 2.998*10^8 m/sec (299,800,000 m/sec). Therefore, according to FET, the Earth is currently moving at a velocity equal to 4,648,351,701 times FASTER than the speed of light. Four MILLION times faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.
If we accept the theory that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then the speed is less preposterous, but still impossible; it's a mere 6,197 times the speed of light. Physics tells us that it is impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light, because the energy required to accelerate to that velocity would be near infinite. So, anytime a flat-earther tries to tell you their theory is sound, just remember that they believe we're moving at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light AND STILL ACCELERATING.
-
Disproving the existence of UA is simple. According to FET, the Earth is accelerating at a constant rate of 9.82 m/sec^2. Therefore, to calculate the Earth's current velocity, we need only multiply the given rate of acceleration by the Earth's age in seconds. If we accept the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and we assume it began accelerating immediately, then the Earth's age in seconds is roughly (4.5*10^9)*365*24*60*60, or 1.419*10^17 seconds old (141,912,000,000,000,000 seconds). Now multiply that by 9.82 for the current velocity in m/sec for 1.39*10^18 m/sec (1,393,575,840,000,000,000 m/sec). The speed of light is approximately 2.998*10^8 m/sec (299,800,000 m/sec). Therefore, according to FET, the Earth is currently moving at a velocity equal to 4,648,351,701 times FASTER than the speed of light. Four MILLION times faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.
You are using classical mechanics when you should be using Special Relativity. You can accelerate forever and you will asymptotically approach the speed of light, but never reach it.
So, anytime a flat-earther tries to tell you their theory is sound, just remember that they believe we're moving at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light AND STILL ACCELERATING.
No, FE/UA proponents do not believe we are "moving" faster than light. It would help if you had a clue what you were talking about before you made a post such as this.
-
I think a better question would be to explain the red shift of stars suggesting they are moving away from us. Everyone has been to a NASCAR race and heard the eeeee-yoowwwww sound as the cars come towards and away from you. Maybe the earth is a 100 years old or 10 billion. I have heard the cars make that noise.
-
UA can be debunked by simply realizing the 9.81 figure changes along earths surface and with altitude.
-
UA can be debunked by simply realizing the 9.81 figure changes along earths surface and with altitude.
Oh wow you must be the first person to have brought that up.
It’s accounted for in FET.
-
Disproving the existence of UA is simple. According to FET, the Earth is accelerating at a constant rate of 9.82 m/sec^2. Therefore, to calculate the Earth's current velocity, we need only multiply the given rate of acceleration by the Earth's age in seconds. If we accept the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and we assume it began accelerating immediately, then the Earth's age in seconds is roughly (4.5*10^9)*365*24*60*60, or 1.419*10^17 seconds old (141,912,000,000,000,000 seconds). Now multiply that by 9.82 for the current velocity in m/sec for 1.39*10^18 m/sec (1,393,575,840,000,000,000 m/sec). The speed of light is approximately 2.998*10^8 m/sec (299,800,000 m/sec). Therefore, according to FET, the Earth is currently moving at a velocity equal to 4,648,351,701 times FASTER than the speed of light. Four MILLION times faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.
You are using classical mechanics when you should be using Special Relativity. You can accelerate forever and you will asymptotically approach the speed of light, but never reach it.
So, anytime a flat-earther tries to tell you their theory is sound, just remember that they believe we're moving at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light AND STILL ACCELERATING.
No, FE/UA proponents do not believe we are "moving" faster than light. It would help if you had a clue what you were talking about before you made a post such as this.
Why are you so rude? It's like you only reply to people you wanna diss, not those you want to discuss with!
-
UA can be debunked by simply realizing the 9.81 figure changes along earths surface and with altitude.
It’s accounted for in FET.
I see. I must have missed that lecture. Could you please bring me up to speed here?
-
One of the main arguments that flat-earthers use is that NASA claims that we are living on a spinning ball that is rotating at 1000 mph. Even though it is moving this fast, we are unable to feel it. Therefore, the Earth is not spinning. However, we humans are only able to feel motion if we are accelerating. Therefore, if we are going at a constant speed of 1000 mph, then we would not be able to feel a thing. This is analogous to a car ride on a highway. You are going at a constant rate of 30 mph, and it feels as if you are not moving at all. Then, you suddenly accelerate to 70 mph. While you are changing speed, you are pressed against your seat. However, once you are again going at a constant rate, you feel as if everything is normal. This situation cannot be applied to Flat-Earth’s acceleration model. If we were constantly accelerating, then we would be pressed against the Earth due to the change in speed. Think about it. We don’t feel a thing as we are asymptotically approaching the speed if light, but 1000 mph is enough to feel it.
-
One of the main arguments that flat-earthers use is that NASA claims that we are living on a spinning ball that is rotating at 1000 mph. Even though it is moving this fast, we are unable to feel it. Therefore, the Earth is not spinning. However, we humans are only able to feel motion if we are accelerating. Therefore, if we are going at a constant speed of 1000 mph, then we would not be able to feel a thing. This is analogous to a car ride on a highway. You are going at a constant rate of 30 mph, and it feels as if you are not moving at all. Then, you suddenly accelerate to 70 mph. While you are changing speed, you are pressed against your seat. However, once you are again going at a constant rate, you feel as if everything is normal. This situation cannot be applied to Flat-Earth’s acceleration model. If we were constantly accelerating, then we would be pressed against the Earth due to the change in speed. Think about it. We don’t feel a thing as we are asymptotically approaching the speed if light, but 1000 mph is enough to feel it.
Yeah, you’ve got some work to do there. You do feel something accelerating on FE, turns out it’s equivalant to gravity (same for both RE and FE).
Acceleration is the same in both models. You won’t find that strawman you’ve called a “main” argument here, as our users understand round earth mechanics. I suggest you take some time to understand them as well, then maybe try again.
-
By my calculations we reached 99.9999999999999% of the speed of light after 17 years of accelerating constantly at 9.81m/s^2.
I can't seem to find any information on the age of the Earth, so I'll assume 4.6bn years.
I can't find any information on the weight or thickness of the earth - it may be infinitely wide, which kind of implies infinite mass. Alternatively as its speed approaches c, so its mass approaches infinity.
Somewhere in the universe is the infinite amount of energy which is needed to shift an infinite mass for 4.6bn (OK, 4.6bn less a few) years, but no-one has mentioned its source as far as I can see.
-
By my calculations we reached 99.9999999999999% of the speed of light after 17 years of accelerating constantly at 9.81m/s^2.
I can't seem to find any information on the age of the Earth, so I'll assume 4.6bn years.
I can't find any information on the weight or thickness of the earth - it may be infinitely wide, which kind of implies infinite mass. Alternatively as its speed approaches c, so its mass approaches infinity.
Somewhere in the universe is the infinite amount of energy which is needed to shift an infinite mass for 4.6bn (OK, 4.6bn less a few) years, but no-one has mentioned its source as far as I can see.
The Earth isn't infinitely thick in ANY FE model. Please don't bring a strawman in for no reason. The only one where it's infinitely wide is the one 'infinite plane' hypothesis where they use standard mass attracts mass gravity. The UA model assumes finite dimensions in all directions.
As for the rest I don't presume to understand the parts of GR they're cherry picking. I just know the guys who DO seem to know more tend to agree it's not a place the UA hypothesis can be picked apart.
-
By my calculations we reached 99.9999999999999% of the speed of light after 17 years of accelerating constantly at 9.81m/s^2.
I can't seem to find any information on the age of the Earth, so I'll assume 4.6bn years.
I can't find any information on the weight or thickness of the earth - it may be infinitely wide, which kind of implies infinite mass. Alternatively as its speed approaches c, so its mass approaches infinity.
Somewhere in the universe is the infinite amount of energy which is needed to shift an infinite mass for 4.6bn (OK, 4.6bn less a few) years, but no-one has mentioned its source as far as I can see.
The Earth isn't infinitely thick in ANY FE model. Please don't bring a strawman in for no reason. The only one where it's infinitely wide is the one 'infinite plane' hypothesis where they use standard mass attracts mass gravity. The UA model assumes finite dimensions in all directions.
As for the rest I don't presume to understand the parts of GR they're cherry picking. I just know the guys who DO seem to know more tend to agree it's not a place the UA hypothesis can be picked apart.
No straw man here, just another unexplained consequence of FET physics.
I didn't say the Earth was infinitely thick; I said that it may be infinitely wide. But it doesn't matter about the dimensions, as long as it has mass: it's the acceleration which is a problem.
Pre-Einstein, you can work out the speed of an accelerating object by multiplying the acceleration by the time. We know that a=9.81 and t=4.6bn years in seconds, so FE speed=1,400,000,000,000,000,000 m/s.
Einstein says you can't go faster than 300,000,000 m/s. "Piece of cake", says FET. "Relativity says that you can keep accelerating but you'll never go faster than light."
And they're correct. You can't use that equation in Einstein's world (although in everyday terms there's no noticeable difference) so you never reach the speed of light. But why can't we travel at light speed?
As the FE accelerates, its mass increases. Things get heavier as they go faster. If you're nowhere near the speed of light you won't notice, but as you approach the speed of light then mass approaches infinity.
The implication of this is that as the mass increases, the energy needed to accelerate the mass increases correspondingly. As the mass approaches infinity, the energy required to maintain acceleration also approaches infinity. This is one reason against light speed travel.
-
UA can be debunked by simply realizing the 9.81 figure changes along earths surface and with altitude.
Oh wow you must be the first person to have brought that up.
It’s accounted for in FET.
junker, something something about low content posting in the upper fora??
Rules are rules.
and for the OP i have understood we are travelling at the mentioned 9.81m/s, not continually accelerating at this rate.Though I may be wrong.
-
and for the OP i have understood we are travelling at the mentioned 9.81m/s, not continually accelerating at this rate. Though I may be wrong.
Yep, you are wrong; you have misunderstood their model. The “A” in their term “UA” stands for Acceleration. In some versions of FE this replaces mass-attracts-mass gravity. The “U” term is for “Universal”, which means the sun, moon, planets, and stars are accelerating too, which is why we don’t fly past them as we accelerate upwards.
-
Well how are any of us able to withstand such force? All land based life on earth would have had to evolve tremendously powerful trunks and legs to withstand this constant acceleration. Much like trees. And why can i not feel this constant acceleration? Even the slightest change in my car by pushing the cruise control to increase my speed is perceptible.
As much as I try, these theories and assertions are becoming more and more preposterous.
-
You still don’t fully understand it. This replaces gravity. It is the same amount of force. The legs you have are already adequate to withstand 9.8 m/s/s acceleration. That’s 1g, after all.
-
The implication of this is that as the mass increases, the energy needed to accelerate the mass increases correspondingly. As the mass approaches infinity, the energy required to maintain acceleration also approaches infinity. This is one reason against light speed travel.
No, this is not how relativity works.
We are accelerating at 9.8 m s-2 in our own frame of reference, in which the Earth is stationary and does not have dilated mass. The energy requirement to accelerate it is therefore proportional to its rest mass.
If you were to observe the Earth from the frame of reference it was in 4 billion years ago, it would be very heavy, but its acceleration would also appear much slower. This is a necessary consequence of the fact that, in relativity, you cannot accelerate past the speed of light. If acceleration were still 9.8 m s-2 in this frame of reference, then we would very quickly pass the speed of light, which is impossible.
Thus, the energy requirement for acceleration remains constant.
-
Well how are any of us able to withstand such force? All land based life on earth would have had to evolve tremendously powerful trunks and legs to withstand this constant acceleration. Much like trees. And why can i not feel this constant acceleration? Even the slightest change in my car by pushing the cruise control to increase my speed is perceptible.
As much as I try, these theories and assertions are becoming more and more preposterous.
All land-based life did evolve to handle 1 g no matter if it's from gravity or acceleration. You can't feel the acceleration because it's constant. Only if the acceleration changed rate would you feel it.
-
A few things to wrap my mind around. Been interesting. Still much to learn.
thanks to both sides.
-
The implication of this is that as the mass increases, the energy needed to accelerate the mass increases correspondingly. As the mass approaches infinity, the energy required to maintain acceleration also approaches infinity. This is one reason against light speed travel.
No, this is not how relativity works.
Yes it is. It’s just that either :
a) you don’t understand it,
b) you’re trying to shill me or
c) relativity works differently on a flat earth (which would require a different universe).
In any event, congratulations for picking up something so complicated using only Zetetics.
We are accelerating at 9.8 m s-2 in our own frame of reference, in which the Earth is stationary and does not have dilated mass. The energy requirement to accelerate it is therefore proportional to its rest mass.
Let’s get this clear – the FE is ALWAYS accelerating at 9.81m/s2 in order to replace gravity, but you cannot accelerate and be stationary in the same “frame of reference”. The energy need to accelerate the FE is always proportional to its total mass. At a standstill it has only rest mass, but as it accelerates it gains inertial mass. Total mass=rest mass+inertial mass.
If you were to observe the Earth from the frame of reference it was in 4 billion years ago, it would be very heavy, but its acceleration would also appear much slower.
That's the wrong way round. Assuming you mean the beginning of the acceleration, the only mass of the Flat Earth would be its rest mass (although it could still be very heavy). Acceleration would be at 9.81 m/s2 in your own time frame, and I agree as I watch you from my frame on Round Earth. However, within a few years I see you still accelerating, but much much less as the Universe stops you reaching the speed of light by adding inertial mass. And slowing down time, etc.
TL;DR you start off light and quick, and get heavier and slower.
This is a necessary consequence of the fact that, in relativity, you cannot accelerate past the speed of light. If acceleration were still 9.8 m s-2 in this frame of reference, then we would very quickly pass the speed of light, which is impossible.
No, acceleration in your frame of reference remains at 9.81m/s2, otherwise your “gravity” would alter. However the Universe is ganging up on you by making your mass increase ( thereby needing more energy), time slow down (so instead of 9.81 m per second every second, it’s 9.81 m per 2 seconds, every two seconds – and increasing) and distances foreshorten (ie 9.81m becomes 8m then 7 …)
Rejoice! As distances foreshorten, the Flat Earth gets even flatter - even Round Earth becomes disc-shaped ;D
You are still accelerating, but “meters”, “kilograms” and “seconds” have changed. In my frame of reference, not yours; you can’t zetetically detect anything unusual because it’s happening to everything in your frame of reference.
Everything looks normal to you, as you whizz through the Universe at 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, but I see you as short and squashed - you're only a few inches tall. The second hands on rour clocks are barely crawling around their faces, as far as I'm concerned. If you hold a 12" ruler and point it to the ceiling, to me it seems maybe 2" high. But when you point it to the wall, at 90degrees to your acceleration, i see it magically stretch to its full length.
Thus, the energy requirement for acceleration remains constant.
Thus the energy requirement for UA goes off the scale. Einstein tells you why you can't exceed the speed of light, but that doesn't mean you can't keep accelerating. That's what your own wiki says; it just seems to stop short of considering the implications.
-
Yes it is. It’s just that either :
a) you don’t understand it,
b) you’re trying to shill me or
c) relativity works differently on a flat earth (which would require a different universe).
In any event, congratulations for picking up something so complicated using only Zetetics.
Your postulations are irrelevant. Let's deal with facts and figures, shall we?
Let’s get this clear – the FE is ALWAYS accelerating at 9.81m/s2 in order to replace gravity, but you cannot accelerate and be stationary in the same “frame of reference”.
Incorrect. You can be stationary -- that is, have a velocity of zero -- at one instant in time while accelerating in a given inertial frame of reference. A short time before, you would be moving one way, and a short time after, you would be moving the other, but in between you have acceleration but no velocity. It is perfectly valid to consider what is happening at the instant for which you are stationary using special relativity.
At any given instant, there is an inertial frame of reference in which the Earth is stationary, and it is in that frame of reference that it has an acceleration of 9.8 m s-2. This is why only the rest mass is relevant.
Now, to perform a complete analysis involving the passage of time, we need to consider that the Earth is really in a non-inertial frame of reference, which is a case explicitly excluded from special relativity. Fortunately, we do not need to complicate our analysis in this way. It is sufficient to note that in this non-inertial frame of reference, we observe a proper acceleration (also known as "gravity") of 9.8 m s-2, which means that that is the Earth's rate of acceleration within an inertial frame of reference in which it is stationary at any given instant.
The energy need to accelerate the FE is always proportional to its total mass. At a standstill it has only rest mass, but as it accelerates it gains inertial mass. Total mass=rest mass+inertial mass.
This is nonsense. "Inertial mass" is not something you gain by accelerating. What you mean to say is that at non-zero velocities, your relativistic mass exceeds your rest mass, which is true. However, it fails to do anything to counter my point. Indeed, it is an axiom upon which my point rests.
That's the wrong way round. Assuming you mean the beginning of the acceleration, the only mass of the Flat Earth would be its rest mass (although it could still be very heavy). Acceleration would be at 9.81 m/s2 in your own time frame, and I agree as I watch you from my frame on Round Earth. However, within a few years I see you still accelerating, but much much less as the Universe stops you reaching the speed of light by adding inertial mass. And slowing down time, etc.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You start out by saying I have things the wrong way round, and spend the rest of your paragraph repeating my argument (using incorrect terminology, but nobody's perfect). I appreciate the support, but was hoping you would have some more substance to your asserted disagreement.
No, acceleration in your frame of reference remains at 9.81m/s2, otherwise your “gravity” would alter.
Correct, but we're not talking about our current frame of reference, we're talking about the frame of reference we were in 4 billion years ago. More precisely, we are talking about the inertial frame of reference in which the Earth was stationary 4 billion years ago, but I skimmed over that distinction for brevity. Perhaps I overestimated your inferential abilities.
However the Universe is ganging up on you by making your mass increase ( thereby needing more energy), time slow down (so instead of 9.81 m per second every second, it’s 9.81 m per 2 seconds, every two seconds – and increasing) and distances foreshorten (ie 9.81m becomes 8m then 7 …)
Yes, exactly. This happens as measured by an inertial observer. However, we are not inertial -- if you'll recall, the whole premise here is that we are accelerating -- so we would not expect to observe this.
Rejoice! As distances foreshorten, the Flat Earth gets even flatter - even Round Earth becomes disc-shaped ;D
You are still accelerating, but “meters”, “kilograms” and “seconds” have changed. In my frame of reference, not yours; you can’t zetetically detect anything unusual because it’s happening to everything in your frame of reference.
Everything looks normal to you, as you whizz through the Universe at 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, but I see you as short and squashed - you're only a few inches tall. The second hands on rour clocks are barely crawling around their faces, as far as I'm concerned. If you hold a 12" ruler and point it to the ceiling, to me it seems maybe 2" high. But when you point it to the wall, at 90degrees to your acceleration, i see it magically stretch to its full length.
You don't need to explain all this to me. I understand special relativity, apparently better than you do.
Thus the energy requirement for UA goes off the scale. Einstein tells you why you can't exceed the speed of light, but that doesn't mean you can't keep accelerating. That's what your own wiki says; it just seems to stop short of considering the implications.
You've just spent your entire post explaining why this is wrong. To an inertial observer, the energy requirement (or more precisely, the power requirement, that is energy per unit time) does not increase. Instead, the acceleration decreases.
Meanwhile, to us non-inertial observers on the Flat Earth, the Earth's mass remains its rest mass, and the acceleration remains 9.8 m s-2.
If you need further clarification, I recommend reading your own post again. It contains all the answers you need.
-
OK, let's start again:
1) It's not possible to accelerate to the speed of light;
2) If you try to do so the Universe changes the goalposts so that metres shrink, seconds expand and kilograms increase, all in such a way as to negate the effect of your acceleration;
3) Because these factors are working against you, you need more and more energy to maintain your acceleration;
4) Since it's UA, repeat steps 2 & 3 ad infinitum. As speed approaches C, your mass approaches infinity, time slows almost to a halt and meters almost vanish. The only option is to increase the energy input, but this approaches infinite as the mass approaches infinite.
5) Universal Acceleration may be valid, but I'm not aware of an infinite energy source to power it.
============================================================================
(I'm happy to ignore time and distance if you are?).
If I've got this right, you say that mass dilation doesn't affect an accelerating FE from its own inertial FoR, i.e. it doesn't know that it's getting heavier.
But the universe knows it's getting heavier, otherwise it wouldn't have to move the goalposts. So the FoR is from the universe's point of view - to accelerate close to C through the universe you need almost infinite energy.
-
Interested to know how UA accounts for the differences measured in gravity in different parts of the world.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/
The general answer from Flat Earthers is "FAKE!", but that is a pretty lazy response and note that multiple agencies in different continents have all reported this.
-
Interested to know how UA accounts for the differences measured in gravity in different parts of the world.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/
The general answer from Flat Earthers is "FAKE!", but that is a pretty lazy response and note that multiple agencies in different continents have all reported this.
To start, I am not making this concept up. google "it's turtles all the way down" if you are not familiar with this concept.
I was thinking that if instead of infinite turtles supporting a flat earth, one had an appropriate initial number of turtles that could continue growing and reproducing, the rate of growth would be parabolic. This would give the appearance of gravity to us. If instead of only being one giant turtle per layer, there were many smaller turtles, the growth rate would vary. This would create heaving of the earth in one area of faster growth (mountains) and trenches where the earth was being left behind a bit. This would cause earthquakes and volcanoes and such things. It would explain local variations in gravity in different areas.
I bemoan that to date, I only get arguments from Round Earthers and perhaps that is what I will get here. This might be a complicated system, but I think for a Flat Earth it pretty much covers more observations, provides a mechanism for gravity and I am willing to hear better models.
Cheers
-
1) It's not possible to accelerate to the speed of light;
Correct.
2) If you try to do so the Universe changes the goalposts so that metres shrink, seconds expand and kilograms increase, all in such a way as to negate the effect of your acceleration;
I have to wonder if you really understand what's going on here because of the terminology you are using, and also what you say below (but I'll reply to that in turn). Nothing "changes the goalposts"; length contraction, time dilation and mass dilation are well understood physical effects. The universe also has no sapience with which to do anything.
However, terminology aside, this is fundamentally correct.
3) Because these factors are working against you, you need more and more energy to maintain your acceleration;
Only if you want to maintain a constant acceleration as seen by an inertial observer. This corresponds to an ever-increasing acceleration as observed by someone on the accelerating object.
This is not how UA works; we observe a constant acceleration, therefore an inertial observer would see decreasing acceleration.
4) Since it's UA, repeat steps 2 & 3 ad infinitum. As speed approaches C, your mass approaches infinity, time slows almost to a halt and meters almost vanish. The only option is to increase the energy input, but this approaches infinite as the mass approaches infinite.
5) Universal Acceleration may be valid, but I'm not aware of an infinite energy source to power it.
Step 3 does not correctly represent UA, so this does not apply.
(I'm happy to ignore time and distance if you are?).
It's not that they are being ignored, it's that it massively simplifies our analysis if we consider one instant in time from an inertial frame of reference, instead of trying to model the Earth's non-inertial frame of reference over time. The key point to keep in mind is that we do not specify which instant of time we are talking about, and therefore can draw conclusions spanning all of time (or at least, for as long as the Earth's proper acceleration remains constant) by considering individual instants.
If I've got this right, you say that mass dilation doesn't affect an accelerating FE from its own inertial FoR, i.e. it doesn't know that it's getting heavier.
But the universe knows it's getting heavier, otherwise it wouldn't have to move the goalposts. So the FoR is from the universe's point of view - to accelerate close to C through the universe you need almost infinite energy.
And here's where things get really wonky. You don't seem to understand the most basic principle of relativity, despite the fact that it is written in the name. Measurements of length, time and mass are relative to the observer. The Earth is not "getting heavier" in any objective sense; its observed mass depends on the observer, and so does its acceleration.
The problem with your argument is that you are using the Earth's mass in one frame of reference and its acceleration in another. Of course this is going to lead you to absurd conclusions.
The simplest frame of reference to use in order to see what is going on is the one in which the Earth is stationary (for an instant). In this frame of reference, it has only rest mass and is accelerating at 9.8 m s-2. If you want to switch to a frame of reference in which its mass is greater, you must also calculate its acceleration in that frame of reference.
-
There are plenty of posts on this forum where FET disagrees with RET. It really doesn't matter what I say because it's not my theory; all I'm doing is providing my understanding of it.
My absurd conclusion is based on what I've been taught and what I've read, and it matches every reputable source on this matter. However, if you think it's possible to continuously accelerate to c then I'm surprised that you're too diffident to publish this more widely. If you're correct, write a paper, get some kudos for the society and win yourself a Nobel prize.
-
There are plenty of posts on this forum where FET disagrees with RET. It really doesn't matter what I say because it's not my theory; all I'm doing is providing my understanding of it.
This has nothing to do with FET or RET, this is basic relativity.
My absurd conclusion is based on what I've been taught and what I've read, and it matches every reputable source on this matter.
Your conclusion is based on mixing and matching observations from different frames of reference. Please provide one reputable source which backs up this methodology.
However, if you think it's possible to continuously accelerate to c then I'm surprised that you're too diffident to publish this more widely. If you're correct, write a paper, get some kudos for the society and win yourself a Nobel prize.
I don't think that, nor is that even close to an accurate representation of what I said.
-
Forget observers. They aren't necessary and only lead to confusion.
Universal Acceleration defines a Flat Earth constantly accelerating at g=9.81 /s2.
After 1 year it will have accelerated to 0.77c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 1.58
After 2 years it will have accelerated to 0.97c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 3.99
After 3 years it will have accelerated to 0.996c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 11.01
After 4 years it will have accelerated to 0.9995c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 30.79
After 5 years it will have accelerated to 0.99993c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 86.22
After 16 years it will have accelerated to 0.9999999999999999c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 7194825 (and my spreadsheet runs out of resolution).
If the FE wants to continue accelerating at g, then as its speed approaches c its mass will approach infinity and the energy needed to maintain g also approaches infinity.
Universal Acceleration needs almost infinite energy.
-
Forget observers. They aren't necessary and only lead to confusion.
Observers are fundamental to relativity because mass is relative to the observer. If you do not understand this, you have no business talking about relativity at all.
After 16 years it will have accelerated to 0.9999999999999999c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 7194825 (and my spreadsheet runs out of resolution).
If the FE wants to continue accelerating at g, then as its speed approaches c its mass will approach infinity and the energy needed to maintain g also approaches infinity.
After 16 years of accelerating at g, an object will have accelerated to over 16 times the speed of light. You have correctly surmised that, due to relativity, its acceleration decreases over time in the frame of reference you are using. Why, then, are you still saying that it is accelerating at g?
-
Relativity has been proven by such things as time shifts on satellites, light bending as it approaches the massive sun, and other things that do not exist in an FE world. Therefore it does not have to exist. A way to get UA is to put two holes in the ice wall, attach strings and give it to a giant kid to spin like a yo-yo. That is basically how they got the effect of gravity on 2001 A Space Odessey.
The thing about relativity in a round earth world is that everywhere is the center of the universe. Nothing is moving from its frame of reference as we can see since the speed of light is the same in every direction. No matter how long you have accelerated (we appear to be going .9 c to galaxies far from us) it still requires the same amount of energy to accelerate as it did before you accelerated. You are always basically not moving in relation to yourself as a reference.
People who do not accept evolution point to how scientists cannot agree on tiny details of their theory. If you cannot decide if pandas are bears or raccoons, how can evolution be true? On this site, there is a lot of arguing between round earthers. I have seen very little debate on the Flat Earth side. If we accept that FE is based upon just being part of an old society that is like the Volunteer Fire Fighters on the Flintstones (how can houses made of stone burn?) the bickering by REs seems irrelevant. Play respectfully.
-
I read through Parsifal's posts and I (think) I understand special relativity decently well. Parsifal is correct in that most of the arguments involving "a lot of energy" are wrong -- energy is not an invariant quantity. Neither is relativistic mass (a term often avoided due to the confusion it causes). There is a quantity that is invariant, and that is aptly named invariant mass -- this is the rest mass of an object.
However, wouldn't Universal Acceleration mean that the entire observable Universe had to be accelerating with us? If not, then in the (approximately) inertial reference frame of one of the stars, we would see the Earth getting stupidly close to the speed of light with stupidly high amounts of energy. Additionally, if we were on the Earth, and the rest of the Universe weren't accelerating with us, we would observe obvious length contraction of the distances between the stars.
I'm a Round Earther, and my question to you Flat Earthers is: why would a theory that violates isotropy of space (clearly there is a favored direction of acceleration) be favored over one with a simple explanation: gravity exists, and the Earth is roughly spherical?
Also, this means that an invisible force has to affect everything in the observable universe to make it accelerate with the Earth (otherwise it wouldn't); we feel the acceleration of UA as weight because of the (electromagnetic) normal force exerted on us by Earth to keep us accelerating. Why aren't we just accelerated by the invisible force? Shouldn't we feel weightless? What makes our matter on Earth different from those in the stars?
Of course, none of UA can explain the various experiments done with torsion balances to verify the existence of gravity. Usually these are hand-waved away by criticizing experimental procedure (such as the presence of stray charges, incorrect measurement, bad setup, etc) but in reality most of those criticisms are outright lies or misinformed.
Claiming that the experiment is not repeated is an outright lie, and I don't appreciate that. Claiming that there are problems with the replications requires a lot of proof, and most of those "problems" are misinformation. Claiming that gravity is some sort of EM interaction is displaying ignorance, as all of the balls are intentionally discharged. Claiming that gravity is due to some <insert quantum woo here> does nothing to dispel its existence.
-
Relativity has been proven by such things as time shifts on satellites, light bending as it approaches the massive sun, and other things that do not exist in an FE world.
Those things are demonstrations of general relativity. We are talking about special relativity, which is observable in (for example) particle accelerators.
The rest of your post is just ranting which is not FED material. I have not split it off because your first sentence is at least somewhat relevant, but please try to remain on topic.
However, wouldn't Universal Acceleration mean that the entire observable Universe had to be accelerating with us?
Yes, this is part of the UA theory. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration).
I'm a Round Earther, and my question to you Flat Earthers is: why would a theory that violates isotropy of space (clearly there is a favored direction of acceleration) be favored over one with a simple explanation: gravity exists, and the Earth is roughly spherical?
Why is isotropy of space necessarily a simple quality?
Also, this means that an invisible force has to affect everything in the observable universe to make it accelerate with the Earth (otherwise it wouldn't); we feel the acceleration of UA as weight because of the (electromagnetic) normal force exerted on us by Earth to keep us accelerating. Why aren't we just accelerated by the invisible force? Shouldn't we feel weightless? What makes our matter on Earth different from those in the stars?
The Earth shields us from the UA's direct influence. Please do read https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration).
Of course, none of UA can explain the various experiments done with torsion balances to verify the existence of gravity. Usually these are hand-waved away by criticizing experimental procedure (such as the presence of stray charges, incorrect measurement, bad setup, etc) but in reality most of those criticisms are outright lies or misinformed.
UA cannot do that, but that is because UA does not really say anything at all about interactive forces between masses, so I would not expect it to.
It is evident that a gravitational attraction between masses must exist, otherwise the variances in observed gravity across the Earth's surface could not be explained by UA alone. The point on which FET and RET disagree is whether the Earth has sufficient gravitational attraction to pull itself into a ball. In FET, its mass (or perhaps merely the strength of gravity over long distances) is not sufficient to do this, but local gravity varies due to variation in the density of the Earth.
Following this train of thought, there is no need to deny the validity of such experiments, but nor do they verify anything about the RET model.
-
Those things are demonstrations of general relativity. We are talking about special relativity, which is observable in (for example) particle accelerators.
Is it possible for the theory of general relativity and the theory of universal acceleration to both be true?
-
Those things are demonstrations of general relativity. We are talking about special relativity, which is observable in (for example) particle accelerators.
Is it possible for the theory of general relativity and the theory of universal acceleration to both be true?
I don't see why not. However, my understanding of general relativity is much more limited than my understanding of special relativity.
-
Well, the answer is strictly No, because GR includes gravity. I ask because I'm interested in how one might reconcile the experimental tests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity) of general relativity with another theory that precludes the existence of gravity as GR requires.
-
Well, the answer is strictly No, because GR includes gravity.
Why is that a problem?
I ask because I'm interested in how one might reconcile the experimental tests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity) of general relativity with another theory that precludes the existence of gravity as GR requires.
Those tests all assume a RET cosmos, as Ratboy has pointed out. The collected data would need to be reinterpreted from scratch with a FET cosmos. As I'm sure you can imagine, the majority of research funding for the past century being directed towards projects which assume RET has left us somewhat behind in this regard, so unfortunately I do not have any ready-to-eat explanations for you.
-
If it assumes a particular cosmos, and has been repeatedly measured tested in multiple ways, and the assumptions have never led to incorrect or surprising results that were not predicted by the theory, then the assumptions are exceedingly likely to be correct.
If you assume a flat Earth cosmos of whatever design, any experimental prediction will fail, because the Earth is not flat. If one holds the assumption to be true regardless, then there must be some other reason things are the way they are. This is how universal acceleration was conjured out of the bunk aether in the first place. 'If the Earth is flat, then gravity cannot exist, therefore we must experience constant universal acceleration and mistake it for gravity.'
I should point out, your wiki agrees with me (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration) that the theories are incompatible. If you think this is wrong, change the wiki.
-
If it assumes a particular cosmos, and has been repeatedly measured tested in multiple ways, and the assumptions have never led to incorrect or surprising results that were not predicted by the theory, then the assumptions are exceedingly likely to be correct.
This is bog-standard scientific arrogance. The same thing was thought of Newtonian physics, until Einstein came along. Much less time has now passed since relativity was published than elapsed between Newton's time and Einstein's. Just because we have not yet discovered inaccuracies in a model does not imply that they do not exist.
Looking at this from another angle, is it any surprise that a theory which was concocted by someone assuming RET works well with RET assumptions?
If you assume a flat Earth cosmos of whatever design, any experimental prediction will fail, because the Earth is not flat. If one holds the assumption to be true regardless, then there must be some other reason things are the way they are. This is how universal acceleration was conjured out of the bunk aether in the first place. 'If the Earth is flat, then gravity cannot exist, therefore we must experience constant universal acceleration and mistake it for gravity.'
This is gibberish based on your assumption that the Earth is round. I could just as easily say that Newton's theory of gravity was "conjured out of the bunk aether" because he simply thought about what might cause a large ball to attract smaller objects towards it. However, that does nothing to discredit the theory, because it is still perfectly consistent within RET. Assuming the Earth is flat as an axiom when discussing RET will get us nowhere, and neither will the converse.
I should point out, your wiki agrees with me (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration) that the theories are incompatible. If you think this is wrong, change the wiki.
The wiki merely states that gravity cannot be responsible for the 9.8 m s-2 of proper acceleration that we observe, because that requires the Earth to be a ball. It does not rule out the existence of gravity in any form. It is possible that this wording could be improved.
If you think this is wrong, change the wiki.
I have not said that GR and UA can coexist, merely that I do not see any reason why they cannot. I have already stated that my understanding of GR is somewhat limited, so I do not consider myself qualified to state definitively that they can.
-
If it assumes a particular cosmos, and has been repeatedly measured tested in multiple ways, and the assumptions have never led to incorrect or surprising results that were not predicted by the theory, then the assumptions are exceedingly likely to be correct.
Luckily, we don't need to concern ourselves with this hypothetical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
-
Arrogant or not, what I wrote about assumptions is correct. Both of you are making the same error. A theory eventually appearing incomplete is not the same as it being wrong. GR doesn't have a ready explanation for the phenomena listed in Svarrior's link, and Newton's physics were phased out in pieces during the last two centuries because it couldn't deal with fields; at no point were the premises found to be faulty in either case.
Parsifal, when you write 'I could just as easily say that Newton's theory of gravity was "conjured out of the bunk aether" because he simply thought about what might cause a large ball to attract smaller objects towards it,' this is child's play. "No, you!" You're right that just saying UA is bunk doesn't discredit anything because it is indeed consistent with flat Earth belief, but that's not the entire argument I put forward, is it?
-
A theory eventually appearing incomplete is not the same as it being wrong.
I'm glad you were the one to say it. I assume you will now drop your criticisms about the exact relation between GR and UA being unknown.
-
mmk
The exact relation is that they cannot both be true at the same time. It's pretty far from unknown.
and, flat Earth belief is not incomplete, strictly speaking; it is incorrect
-
Arrogant or not, what I wrote about assumptions is correct. Both of you are making the same error. A theory eventually appearing incomplete is not the same as it being wrong. GR doesn't have a ready explanation for the phenomena listed in Svarrior's link, and Newton's physics were phased out in pieces during the last two centuries because it couldn't deal with fields; at no point were the premises found to be faulty in either case.
That is simply not true, at least in the case of Newton. Newtonian physics predicts that gravity operates instantaneously across all space and that an object can go faster than light simply by accelerating for long enough, both of which are directly contradicted by relativity. That is, it makes incorrect predictions (if you accept relativity, and at least special relativity is not being contested here).
If a theory that makes incorrect predictions does not qualify as incorrect, then what is your metric for correctness?
Parsifal, when you write 'I could just as easily say that Newton's theory of gravity was "conjured out of the bunk aether" because he simply thought about what might cause a large ball to attract smaller objects towards it,' this is child's play. "No, you!"
Yes, I'm glad you noticed that the intent was to demonstrate the childishness of your post.
You're right that just saying UA is bunk doesn't discredit anything because it is indeed consistent with flat Earth belief, but that's not the entire argument I put forward, is it?
It was, unless you're counting your unfounded opinion that the Earth is round and therefore all astronomical observations must align with RET as an argument.
The exact relation is that they cannot both be true at the same time. It's pretty far from unknown.
You have yet to demonstrate that.
and, flat Earth belief is not incomplete, strictly speaking; it is incorrect
Yes, you've already told us that you think the Earth is round. There is no need to place a reminder in every post.
-
It was, unless you're counting your unfounded opinion that the Earth is round and therefore all astronomical observations must align with RET as an argument.
Amused at the idea that the concept of a round (by which I mean roughly spherical) earth is unfounded.
-
Amused at the idea that the concept of a round (by which I mean roughly spherical) earth is unfounded.
Your amusement also does not constitute an argument. Do the REers in this thread have any actual physics to present?
-
Amused at the idea that the concept of a round (by which I mean roughly spherical) earth is unfounded.
Your amusement also does not constitute an argument. Do the REers in this thread have any actual physics to present?
From experience Flat Earthers just run away when proof is presented but go on then. I posted this before and it got ignored. Experiments which demonstrate gravity working:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
-
Amused at the idea that the concept of a round (by which I mean roughly spherical) earth is unfounded.
Your amusement also does not constitute an argument. Do the REers in this thread have any actual physics to present?
Do you? You've posted SR, to which you've contributed nothing, and held it up as some sort of validation of UA. We all know Einstein did not believe in a flat Earth. As far as physics, let's stick with Einstein. GR predicts a massive rotating body will warp space around it. (Frame dragging) This has been experimentally confirmed by the LAGEOS satellites. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946852/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946852/)
Further, gravity waves have been detected by the LIGO experiment.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-is-ligo (https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-is-ligo)
What experimental data do you have that shows the Earth is flat beyond some guy not understanding light refraction?
-
Parsifal, your explanations of UA have enlightened me to how it works. From what I understand, UA explains the bulk of the force that we feel on Earth, while gravity contributes to the observed local variations.
However, if one admits that the experiments verifying gravity were not faked/manipulated and have been repeated several times, then what explains the unusally small gravitational force as predicted by UA? These experiments verified that, at least on a small scale, that the gravitational force is proportional to both masses and some constant. Of course, there's an easy way to explain this: not unlike Newtonian mechanics and its relationship with SR, the proportionality is merely a small-scale approximation of effect, and gravity is much less strong than predicted at large scales.
But this would entail completely rethinking the orbital dynamics of the various bodies interacting with one another. I admit I haven't done the calculations myself, but changing the gravitational force between objects orbiting in complicated systems should result in deviations from observed behavior. I guess by denying the given mass values of objects in space and positing new ones one could make everything work out, but then there's another problem: such mass values would be wildly inconsistent with the assertion that stars are big balls of gas with certain densities. So you would have to change the composition of the stars and fudge around with the Ideal Gas Law (maybe say it doesn't hold for high temperatures?) to really make this work. Then you would have to reconcile this with spectral evidence detailing exactly what gases are in the stars. It turns into something really bad.
I also don't see why we have to resort to this kind of physics to disprove Flat Earth. The geometry simply doesn't work out, as anyone can figure out by simply measuring a triangle on the Earth!
Here's an interesting (and fun) experiment to check that Earth isn't flat. You'll need an airplane and a very accurate compass. Head due West for 50 miles. Then head due North for 50 miles. Now turn to where you started (ensure that you won't miss!). Record the angle turned in your notebook. When you arrive where you started, record the angle from due West in your notebook. If you sum all of the angles in the triangle, they don't add up to 180 degrees ;D
In fact, they add up to more than 180 degrees, proving that the Earth has a curve to it (and not the weird one).
Now as for things that I haven't seen an FEer explain (and I apologize if it's on the Wiki; I've tried my best to read it):
The "shielding" aspect of UA -- what's the physical mechanism behind this and can this be quantified? Also wouldn't that planets/stars in space have halves that shield the other halves, yielding some interesting math? I presume that the math could eventually work out, unless some other Round Earther can prove it wrong to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning. This is used in virtually all software written for inertial navigation systems. Without it, they would deviate drastically. Current inertial navigation systems are rather accurate (still pretty poor) and can be used on things like ballistic missiles. Why would inertial navigation systems include something that shouldn't exist per FE theory?
The Foucault Pendulum. I'm aware of the page on the Wiki. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham clearly has no idea what he's talking about as numerous Foucault pendulums have been built with differing materials and many in climate-controlled environments. They all confirm one another. I've seen one in a museum. One cannot attribute this to simple environmental conditions. As for the second part, Mach's principle is misinterpreted. It's a general heuristic about making physical laws relating the stars to us -- by observing the motions of the stars, we can perhaps conclude something about our frame. You can see this in GR where the metric tensor (spacetime) is affected by matter. It says nothing about the stars' gravitational pull moving the Foucault pendulum (which would be totally inconsistent with the idea of a weak gravitational force!). One should note that there is a current debate about the idea of "absolute rotation"; this has little to do with a Foucault pendulum or FE.
Seismic science. I'm not familiar with this topic, but it seems that seismologists determine the composition of the interior of the Earth by examining reflected seismic waves. You'll need to discredit their observations.
Pictures by amateurs and commercial ventures. Rockets work in space (that's a fact and if you want to debate that, I suggest you read up on physics). The ability of them to get to space is consistent with Newton's laws. There have been pictures taken of the Earth that clearly show that it is round. Many different types of cameras have been sent up, including those without a fish-eye lens. They have verified that the Earth is round.
-
As for the second part, Mach's principle is misinterpreted. It's a general heuristic about making physical laws relating the stars to us -- by observing the motions of the stars, we can perhaps conclude something about our frame. You can see this in GR where the metric tensor (spacetime) is affected by matter. It says nothing about the stars' gravitational pull moving the Foucault pendulum (which would be totally inconsistent with the idea of a weak gravitational force!). One should note that there is a current debate about the idea of "absolute rotation"; this has little to do with a Foucault pendulum or FE.
Mach says that the pendulum is attracted to all of the masses of the universe.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wFVg2aWiGf&dq=mach's%20principle%20pendulum&pg=PA207#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20pendulum&f=false
Read through the above page. According to Mach's Principle the pendulum needs to somehow "sense" the presence of all of the masses of the universe.
Any act of apparent attraction is called "gravitation," which is different than "gravity". Gravitation is more of a general analogy to the word "attraction" without any specific underlying mechanism implied. Hence, the gravitation of the stars pulls the pendulum.
-
Tom, yes I understand what Mach said. Unfortunately, he doesn't mean that the distant stars explicitly attract the pendulum with gravity. He's talking about this in the context of the debate about absolute rotation and effectively a debate about how we should frame our physical laws. A central principle of relativity is that all inertial observers are equivalent. So speed doesn't matter. In effect, in SR, if I'm flying on a plane, I can assert that I'm stationary (and everything else is moving) and all of the physical laws will perfectly describe the situation with that assumption. Now the debate is on whether we can say the same of rotation; if we observe the stars rotating around us, can we form physical laws that take that into account while retaining the principle that there is no "privileged" reference of rotation? Can I say that I'm not rotating and then relate the apparent motion of the stars to me? This is what he means by "sense". Mach does not say that the Foucault pendulum is actually physically forced by the stars or that the stars exert any appreciable force in the Newtonian sense on us.
Currently, our physical laws fully describe most macroscopic phenomena, but they're not elegant in that they require a non-rotating frame of reference. Once you throw rotation in, you get all sorts of fictitious forces (which themselves are derived from a non-rotating frame of reference).
By the way, if you assert that the Foucault pendulum is precessed by gravitation, then you need to quantify how much. On one hand, FE theorists say that gravity is much weaker than the current scientific understanding to allow for the variations in gravitational attraction on the Flat Earth (and UA to make the bulk of our weight), but on the other, if you assert that the distant stars have an appreciable effect on the Foucault pendulum, gravity has to be obscenely strong to allow for such distant objects to affect the pendulum. If you posit that the gravity that makes gravitational variation on Earth is a completely different physical effect than the gravitation on the Foucault pendulum, then you've just introduced a 3rd form of invisible force (UA, gravitation #1 -- orbits and spherical celestial bodies, gravitation #2 Foucault pendulum), which does make FE consistent with the Foucault pendulum, but isn't terribly convincing. You'd also have to explain why the second form of gravitation doesn't follow the usual inverse-square law (otherwise it would be cataclysmic near the star).
FE has made me think about Mach's principle a bit. Typically, the rotation of the stars is attributed to the Earth's rotation (which it is), but is there a way to prove to FE theorists that the Earth is round with some physical law that relates external rotating bodies (such as the stars) to us on the Earth without invoking a rotating Earth (which instantly causes disagreement)? Well, that hasn't happened.
-
It was, unless you're counting your unfounded opinion that the Earth is round and therefore all astronomical observations must align with RET as an argument.-Parfisal
You are very wrong. The RE has many theories that are thought of as facts supporting it, while the FE is the group that is unfounded. You run away from the facts we present you with, you have never done any experiments of your own to support your theory even when presented multiple times with the idea of launching a CubeSat, and the closest you have gotten to doing a single thing to support TFE is when a Limo driver/self-taught rocket scientist tried to use a steam-powered rocket into the air to prove you guys right. Your theory of UA is completely untrustworthy, because the reason we're not going past the speed of light is the theory of relativity. It is Einstein's(RE) generalization of a principle from Galileo(RE). If they got some major theories right and the largest theory ever wrong they are inconsistent. Trustworthiness requires consistency. Not only do we have to say that Einstein and Galileo are untrustworthy, but we must consider UA, and therefore TFES with it, untrustworthy.
-
UA can be debunked by simply realizing the 9.81 figure changes along earths surface and with altitude.
It’s accounted for in FET.
I see. I must have missed that lecture. Could you please bring me up to speed here?
I'm also still waiting for it. It sure does take a long time to cook something up.
-
FE doesn't offer so much an explanation as a stop-gap measure. The variations are due to some unexplained "gravitation" (not gravity as Tom Bishop has been so meticulously pointing out) force that also arises between certain objects. In essence, the variations of the gravitational field along with accepting UA imply that there is some other mysterious force influencing us. Sound a lot like the criticism of the scientific method that Tom Bishop keeps alluding to (start with a theory and make stuff up to support it).
ShowMeTheProof -- UA is compatible with Einstein's theory of SR if the entire universe accelerates with us. Unfortunately, it has plenty of other problems (did I mention that, in addition to UA, Tom Bishop essentially has implied that 2 forms of gravitation exist, none of which are gravity?).
I should make a partial list of the established science that FE throws out the window (a lot of which has been replicated numerous times down here on Earth without the need for spaceships):
- Gravity
- Rockets work in space (they do, and if you want to debate it, you don't understand how they work)
- Measuring distances on Earth (cable ships, plane rides, everything)
- Seismology
- Nuclear physics (particularly that dealing with fusion)
All because some people decide that everything has to be the way it seems at first glance (the Earth looks flat, so it must be flat; the horizon looks flat, so it must be flat; I see the Earth accelerate toward me, so it that's how it must work; rockets don't make much sense, so they can't possibly work; rockets move very fast, which is impossible; I don't understand how a "1000 mph" spinning Earth could work, so it must be impossible), when all of these have very obvious explanations when looked at from a science perspective.
-
I wasn't saying that it wasn't compatible. I was saying it would render Einstein, Galileo, and TFES untrustworthy.
-
That is simply not true, at least in the case of Newton. Newtonian physics predicts that gravity operates instantaneously across all space and that an object can go faster than light simply by accelerating for long enough, both of which are directly contradicted by relativity. That is, it makes incorrect predictions (if you accept relativity, and at least special relativity is not being contested here).
If a theory that makes incorrect predictions does not qualify as incorrect, then what is your metric for correctness?
That is basically my metric for correctness. I disagree with your interpretation of Newton's predictions, as Newton's model does not include the variables or knowledge necessary to even make those predictions as you state them. It is more fair to describe them as assumptions - assumptions they were, though Newton wasn't strictly aware that he was making them given the knowledge available in his time, and those he knew about were consistent with the knowledge that was. This is why I refer instead to completeness, and describe Newton as incomplete rather than incorrect. F = ma is an incomplete equation, and makes assumptions that break down for quanta and in gravity wells, but you can accurately predict stuff with it all the same. F = 2ma is strictly incorrect, and attempting to predict anything with it would fail dramatically regardless of any assumptions.
Using these terms, I would describe flat Earth belief as incorrect, as the Earth is not flat. Universal acceleration assumes the Earth is flat, but this assumption is at odds with current common knowledge and observations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System), so I describe this theory as incorrect.