1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA-- the math doesn't work

« on: February 07, 2016, 10:39:13 PM »

If v is indeed the solution of dv/dt, then taking the derivative of v should give us the original differential equation. However, when taking the derivative of the given v, dv/dt=g/(ɣ^3*t^3). Uh-oh, a t^-3 has appeared!

Ah, okay, you're mistaking ∂ for d. I had originally assumed that your notation is incorrect just for the sake of simplicity (or your inability to use the [tex] tag), but it seems that you're actually mixing the two concepts up. That's pretty silly of you.

As it is written, v is only a function of t, and there don't seem to be any other partials present, so treating it as an ODE should work, no? I'm admittedly a bit rusty on my DE game.

As for the reference frames, the article specifically says "Differential equation for velocity on earth," so this should be acceleration in the same reference frame as "dv/dt=g," no?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA-- the math doesn't work

« on: February 07, 2016, 08:49:31 PM »

OK, so dv/dt has been redefined specifically for the special relativity argument--

No, it hasn't. Because we're talking about Special Relativity, the frame of reference is extremely important. The acceleration is constant at 9.81ms^-2 from a non-inertial frame of reference (in this case, the only frame of reference that's easily observable in the real world, e.g. an observer who had just jumped up). The argument of accelerating to the speed of light, however, only becomes at all interpretable in an inertial frame of reference - hence the need to rephrase the equations.

This isn't a simple rephrasing. If the acceleration changes with speed (as the equation given for dv/dt suggests) it is not constant, regardless of reference frame. There is no Lorentz transform in the calculations done on the Wiki page, we are not talking about multiple frames of reference.

2. I don't think this is even the correct equation for calculating relativistic acceleration, but my knowledge of special relativity is fairly elementary so I won't argue that point. However, based on my calculations (using separation of variables), the solution given for this differential equation isn't even correct! You can check it yourself by taking the derivative of the "solution"-- it will not give you the original differential equation!

Could you show your workings?

If v is indeed the solution of dv/dt, then taking the derivative of v should give us the original differential equation. However, when taking the derivative of the given v, dv/dt=g/(ɣ^3*t^3). Uh-oh, a t^-3 has appeared!

3. Here is the conclusion that is arrived at based on these erroneous calculations: "As you can see, it is impossible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light." This statement actually disproves UA-- if the earth's velocity cannot exceed the speed of light, how can it continue accelerating at a constant rate forever? Based on the solution given, as t approaches infinity and v approaches c, it follows that dv/dt must approach 0, meaning that the earth's acceleration is decreasing.

This is simply a restatement of your introduction and of point 1. You have no familiarity with Special Relativity, specifically Lorentz transformations, and you're easily confused by multiple frames of reference. You are not arguing against the Flat Earth Theory here, you are arguing against simple physics, which you should have a good grasp of by the time you finished high school.

Do you even math bro? The statement I'm making here is purely mathematical, and it is only the logical progression of the mathematical conclusion made in the Wiki article. Even if I didn't know anything about special relativity it would not affect this point. The author says that as t-->∞, v-->c. I'm saying that based on this statement that the author has made, it follows that dv/dt must approach 0 as t-->∞.

You have no familiarity with Special Relativity, specifically Lorentz transformations, and you're easily confused by multiple frames of reference. You are not arguing against the Flat Earth Theory here, you are arguing against simple physics, which you should have a good grasp of by the time you finished high school.

Your failure here basically boils down to the fact that UA would indeed be impossible under classical mechanics, which is clearly your default state of mind when thinking about mechanics. However, classical mechanics is just a simplification of reality which produces reasonably accurate results as long as we're not dealing with (for example) things that approach the speed of light.

Tsk, tsk, so many assumptions about my background. Please point out which part of my argument hinges on a classical assumption.

Edit: Actually, I see what you're saying in the context of the article, but I'm still not convinced that its interpretation of proper acceleration is correct. Gotta do some reading

3

Flat Earth Theory / UA-- the math doesn't work

« on: February 07, 2016, 07:27:55 PM »

I originally posted this in another thread, but it was kind of a departure from that discussion so I figured I'd just make a new topic outlining my issues with the math in the UA wiki article. I have found some really egregious mathematical and logical errors that I believe demonstrate major problems with UA, and potentially the system of fact-checking (or lack thereof) on the Wiki as a whole.

At the beginning of this Wiki article, it is stated that "the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2."

So with this sentence, you have basically defined the earth's acceleration:
dv/dt=9.8 m/s^2.

OK, cool, no complaints so far. However, in the special relativity section, we see the following differential equation used for the earth's acceleration:
dv/dt=g/ɣ^3.

OK, so dv/dt has been redefined specifically for the special relativity argument-- this is a really disingenuous move, and it gets worse from here. Here are my main contentions:

1. The whole point of this page is to show that the earth's acceleration is constant. If the earth's acceleration is dv/dt=g/ɣ^3, it is very clearly not constant. The fact that no one would notice such an obvious contradiction is somewhat alarming to me.

2. I don't think this is even the correct equation for calculating relativistic acceleration, but my knowledge of special relativity is fairly elementary so I won't argue that point. However, based on my calculations (using separation of variables), the solution given for this differential equation isn't even correct! You can check it yourself by taking the derivative of the "solution"-- it will not give you the original differential equation!

3. Here is the conclusion that is arrived at based on these erroneous calculations: "As you can see, it is impossible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light." This statement actually disproves UA-- if the earth's velocity cannot exceed the speed of light, how can it continue accelerating at a constant rate forever? Based on the solution given, as t approaches infinity and v approaches c, it follows that dv/dt must approach 0, meaning that the earth's acceleration is decreasing.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth is more confusing than a round one.

« on: February 07, 2016, 02:27:57 PM »

Given that the pseudo force known as gravity does not exist, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Interesting. What force do you folks believe is responsible for weight?
edit: nvmd, found the wiki article

I was also just a little curious too! Just what can we call the force that Henry Cavendish and numerous others have measured since.
Though there are, so far unexplained variations, they certainly measured a force that leads to an accepted value of G = 6.673 x 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2

Apparently, those experiments are all flawed because of... walls? I still don't fully understand where these people are coming from on this. To my ear, the fact that this "UA" hypothesis has to invoke dark energy is also kind of a red flag.

Additionally, if I'm understanding it correctly, the math they included on the Wiki page actually proves UA wrong. It is stated that it is impossible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light. However, it follows from this statement that as the velocity of the earth approaches the speed of the light, the acceleration of the earth MUST approach zero. Therefore, the acceleration of the earth CANNOT be constant.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth is more confusing than a round one.

« on: February 07, 2016, 12:19:25 AM »

Given that the pseudo force known as gravity does not exist, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Interesting. What force do you folks believe is responsible for weight?

edit: nvmd, found the wiki article

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are round earth scientists incompetent or malevolent?

« on: February 06, 2016, 10:21:39 PM »

I am saying that they would have to be completely incompetent to fail to notice the magnitude of such an error.

They simply haven't done their homework.

...

The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).

It is an interesting problem, but I don't understand the connection to flat earth.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are round earth scientists incompetent or malevolent?

« on: February 06, 2016, 10:09:04 PM »

OK, if the earth were flat it would fundamentally change the way that GPS is calculated (I know a lot of FE people don't believe in GPS, not sure where you stand), orbits, the shape and magnitude of the earth's magnetic field, the way that earthquake epicenters are triangulated,  the way that the continents have moved over time-- virtually any calculation involving a significant distance would be incorrect and that error would propagate through all calculations based on that erroneous assumption. Really though, the biggest thing that jumps out at me is that it would mean we have an irreparably flawed understanding of gravity.

On long-distance errors, don't forget error bars. There will inevitably be quite a few involved in any large-scale measurements. Error propagating throughout measurements is explicitly planned for.
On orbits, magnetic fields, gravity... and many such similar issues, don't forget how science is done. Ultimately, all science is, is coming up with an explanation for an observation. It makes no claims as to exclusivity, it just seeks to work out an answer that explains other observations. A misunderstanding of, say, gravity is perfectly understandable if it was arrived at under the view that it was what formed the Earth and made it round. However, most of the applications were arrived at through observation, under the assumption of RET. That's an erroneous assumption, but it doesn't alter the brute fact of the observations.

Accounting for the curvature of the earth in long distance measurements is a form of error correction in the first place. If the earth were flat, the correction should not be necessary, no? Why would engineers and scientists add in this extraneous bit of math if it didn't work?

As for gravity, are you suggesting that the earth could be flat and our current understanding of gravity (in the context of classical mechanics, anyway) could be correct? These two propositions seem very, very much at odds with each other from where I'm standing.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Confused about circumnavigation

« on: February 06, 2016, 07:45:56 PM »

So are you saying that the earth is a 2-sided circular plane?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are round earth scientists incompetent or malevolent?

« on: February 06, 2016, 07:31:03 PM »

Mistaken.
Science is based on standing on the shoulders of giants: they rely on what's come before. Historically, it would have been far easier to make mistakes, and now many of those errors are taken as fact.
The problem isn't incompetence, it's how competence is measured. Imagine a scientist puts forward a paper with math, and experiments, and detailed and verified predictions: if the first line was "The Earth is flat," no one would read any further no matter what was contained within.

I don't think you've seriously considered the amount of error that would propagate through so many different calculations hinging on the assumption that the earth is round across virtually every field of physical science. Failing to notice the magnitude of such an error would display a total lack of competence.

You cannot simply assume RET is the only valid explanation for those calculations.
Would you care to be at all specific?

OK, if the earth were flat it would fundamentally change the way that GPS is calculated (I know a lot of FE people don't believe in GPS, not sure where you stand), orbits, the shape and magnitude of the earth's magnetic field, the way that earthquake epicenters are triangulated,  the way that the continents have moved over time-- virtually any calculation involving a significant distance would be incorrect and that error would propagate through all calculations based on that erroneous assumption. Really though, the biggest thing that jumps out at me is that it would mean we have an irreparably flawed understanding of gravity.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Confused about circumnavigation

« on: February 06, 2016, 03:47:22 PM »

(Details are lengthy, but in answer to your question, it is possible under FET for the North and South to be the same size).

Do you have a map of it I can look at?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are round earth scientists incompetent or malevolent?

« on: February 06, 2016, 03:39:26 PM »

Mistaken.
Science is based on standing on the shoulders of giants: they rely on what's come before. Historically, it would have been far easier to make mistakes, and now many of those errors are taken as fact.
The problem isn't incompetence, it's how competence is measured. Imagine a scientist puts forward a paper with math, and experiments, and detailed and verified predictions: if the first line was "The Earth is flat," no one would read any further no matter what was contained within.

I don't think you've seriously considered the amount of error that would propagate through so many different calculations hinging on the assumption that the earth is round across virtually every field of physical science. Failing to notice the magnitude of such an error would display a total lack of competence.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are round earth scientists incompetent or malevolent?

« on: February 06, 2016, 03:29:50 PM »

Because all of the scientists in the world are concerned with the shape of the earth. 

Very few would be, and, even then, they probably don't think about verifying the shape. They're told it's a sphere and they just go with it.

A lot are, yes. Geologists for example; a big part of geology is figuring out the history of the earth, why the continents are where they are, how the poles have shifted over time, the composition and shape of the layers of the earth, etc. Based on the pictures of the flat earth that I have seen, all of their calculations and models would be rendered HEINOUSLY freaking wrong. I'm not saying that it is impossible that they are wrong, but I am saying that they would have to be completely incompetent to fail to notice the magnitude of such an error.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Are round earth scientists incompetent or malevolent?

« on: February 06, 2016, 01:05:00 PM »

It seems like the flat earth hypothesis kind of makes the implicit assumption that all of the world's scientists are either too stupid to to figure out the actual shape of the earth or they are intentionally keeping it a secret. I find both of these propositions extremely hard to believe. I'm curious to hear what you guys think, and why.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Confused about circumnavigation

« on: February 06, 2016, 01:00:09 PM »

For the first model, what about people sailing or flying long distances in the southern hemisphere? It's not uncommon for people to sail from South America to the southern tip of Africa. Shouldn't this trip take much longer than an equivalent trip in the northern hemisphere?

I'm even more confused by the second model. Shouldn't circumnavigation be possible at any lattitude, and not just Antarctica?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Confused about circumnavigation

« on: February 06, 2016, 04:57:21 AM »

OK, so I'm looking at this picture of the flat earth that purports to explain circumnavigation on the wiki, and it seems like there's a huge problem with this. Consider circumnavigation at 60 degrees North vs. circumnavigation at 60 degrees south. The circumference of the path at 60 degrees south is much greater than that of the path at 60 degrees north. Shouldn't circumnavigation (or any trips in general) take much longer in the southern hemisphere if this map is accurate?