Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mora

Pages: [1]
Science & Alternative Science / Re: In-compressible fluids
« on: November 09, 2018, 02:29:21 AM »
If the difference between reality and approximation is too small to measure, would you even be able to distinguish the two? If not, then we're arguing over nothing, but if so, it hardly makes a difference because whether it's 1100 K or 1115 K, the engine in your car continues to function normally.

Assumptions such as incompressible or inviscid are useful; if they weren't, we wouldn't use them. In fact, there are many instances where we don't use them. Non-dimensional analysis will tell you what assumptions are reasonable to make, and if you're completely intolerant of assumptions for whatever reason, there are other more complete equations that do not make those assumptions. They're just notoriously difficult to solve without using numerical methods.

To the OP, if you're interested in learning more about the sciences, I would start with /literally anything but/ Fluid Mechanics.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 11, 2017, 05:51:04 PM »

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

The pressure at the bottom of a swimming pool and at the bottom of the oceans comes from the weight of all of the water on top of you. Same with atmospheric pressure. It makes no difference if we are accelerating towards the Earth or if the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's all relative.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 11, 2017, 05:42:01 PM »
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

The LIGO array, which has been brought up three times now and which I've already mentioned won the Nobel Prize in Physics, literally proves curved space-time. This is something we've actually measured. That's what gravitational waves are. They are wave-like disturbances in space-time.

We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?

LIGO implies gravitational waves, which you explain with Celestial gravitation, but LIGO also implies bendy space, something you seem to be having a problem with.

Maybe your theory of celestial gravity does have a convenient explanation for everything. I will look into it when I have more time, hopefully soon.

Where is your Nobel Prize?

Touché. Where's yours?

Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

They can't possibly be equivalent by the simple fact that one says the Earth is round while the other says the Earth is flat. A way to settle the matter once and for all would be to fly up into space, fly around the Earth, and observe it's geometry. At which point, one theory would prevail and the other would fail. Thus they are not equivalent. Certainly if you limit their scope enough, then they both appear to be equivalent, just like how the round earth and flat earth become the same when you limit yourself to what you are able to observe from your perspective on the Earth. I think what Einstein was referring to was that direction is all relative. Are we accelerating downwards, or is the Earth accelerating upwards? It's all relative, and unless we are able to observe the Earth from a reference frame not contained in the Earth in our day-to-day, then it makes no difference. That's likely what was meant.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« on: December 11, 2017, 05:20:48 PM »
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.

In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« on: December 06, 2017, 07:44:44 PM »
I see most of you have a minimal grasp of acceleration.

It isn’t up to me to teach you various models of acceleration that would apply in either RET or FET. For those of you still having trouble, I’d suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.

I also have no desire to get into conversations I’ve had dozens or hundreds of times over the years. I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.

I'm sorry, but 'you're ignorant, and I'm not," is not a valid argument. If we all sincerely are so desperately ignorant, proving us wrong should be trivial, especially for a master of the universe, such as yourself. Surely my BS Applied Mathematics degree with a focus on Physics is no match for your holier-than-thou physical intuition. If you fail to adress my points, I'll be forced to conclude that It's because you've got nothing.

If you truly have no desire to repeat the same conversations, then how is it that you manage to continually get tangled up in them? If you don't wish to discuss a subject, simply don't post? But look who I'm talking to. If this discussion really has happened countless times as you have said (of which I have no doubt), perhaps you could link to a post where you soundly defended your assertion. Then you have an effortless reply ready everytime new members join with the same question. Or better yet, why not merge all of these threads into one single UA Discussion Thread, giving new members no reason to post the same question over and over again? As moderator, you have the power to do this and the responsibility to aid in discussion, not hinder it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:46:15 PM »

Also junker, constant acceleration require CONSTANT energy input. How can something accelerate without any additional energy?

It can't. Constant acceleration increases kinetic energy. If this constant acceleration is given "for free", then it cannot be that energy is conserved, and that's a huge contradiction with everything that we've ever observed.

Dark energy... that is the vaguest answer ever I would barely even consider it prof

To be fair, dark energy is a thing that scientists are talking about. Dark energy could be a potential explanation, but only because we don't know anything about it. We don't know what we don't know.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:31:15 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

If I were defending universal acceleration, I would reject the idea of linear kinetic acceleration, since that would imply a rather quick clash with the speed of light. That would leave me with centripetal kinetic acceleration, which implies that the flat earth is in orbit around the Anchor Object with the face of the earth toward the Anchor Object. Now all I need is an Anchor Force so that the earth can be a rock on a spinning string. Hmm. And this is the Occam's Razor thread. I am multiplying entities pretty freely.

Interesting. In your attempt to fix some of the inconsistencies, you make some concessions that put your flat earth model a few steps closer to the round earth model. Just an observation.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:24:43 PM »

I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.

Then why didn't you explicit say so instead of being wishywashy? I mean really, how can you talk to others of laziness when you can't even be bothered to at least mention proper and coordinate acceleration in your original post?

An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by some other force.

Clearly the hypothesis that the Earth is constantly accelerating implies that there is some driving force. Analogously, I might exert energy to slide an object across the floor, but the object doesn't continue to accelerate long after I let go. Acceleration stops as soon as I let go, and friction brings the object to a halt. If you believe any of this to not be the case, please enlighten us.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 05, 2017, 10:33:23 PM »

You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something.
I am asking you and anyone reading this a question about their experience in seeing things fall. I'm completely lost how that is an appeal to authority, or to what authority I am appealing. Don't think it matters at this point, just saying I don't understand your point.

I do see his point, but like all of his other points, its only goal is distract you from the greater matter at hand. Perhaps he doesn't have anything else in his arsenal other than roadblocks and red tape such as these.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 05, 2017, 10:24:14 PM »

The theory of gravitons for the mechanism of gravity can be proven by deriving a test that will allow us to observe gravitons. Dropping a ball and observing that it is accelerated to the earth at the rate graviton theory predicts is not a proof of graviton theory. A true test of the mechanism is required.

In principle, it is impossible to observe individual gravitons directly, we can only measure their effects. The way that you would "observe" gravitons is essentially the equivalent of dropping a ball. It's as if the universe won't let you observe the mechanism, but that's okay. You don't need to know what the mechanism is in the sense that you don't need to be able to envision in your head how gravitons function, just that they do. You can have a vision of an imaginary gravity fairy if it helps you think about gravity, but know that that's only an aid to understanding. If the mechanism is truly unobservable, then any discussion on the matter is inherently not scientific.

Gravity predicted that galaxies should spin faster at the middle than the edges, yet they spin as solid disks.

Gravity predicted that the universe should be decelerating due  to the the gravitational attraction of matter in the universe, yet it is accelerating.

Gravity predicted that the planet Neptune should have been far larger and in a far different place than where it was discovered.

I don't really want to go down this rabbit hole, but as we've seen from countless recently discovered exoplanets, we don't know nearly as much about how planets form as we thought we do.

I think we are getting too far from the original question.

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

But I don't want to seem like I'm dodging questions. Science refers to this phenomena as dark matter / energy. It's simply an unknown. It may be a force all its own, it's probably a type of non-linearity correction for gravity. This doesn't mean that gravity is fundamentally wrong, it just means that our model isn't accurate at larger scales, as we probably would have expected anyways, since we've only very recently been able to observe these large structures where gravity is non-linear. We didn't have any data to go on before, so essentially what we've done is extrapolate the trend we observed on the small scale to the universe at large. Now that we have the data and can see these inconsistencies, we're now able to work towards understanding and accounting for them in our model. It just takes a little time. Again, this doesn't mean that gravity is fundamentally wrong. After all, it works so well on the small scale. We've used it for nearly half a millennia, and only recently have had any sort of inkling that anything was amiss. Any correction will likely be a small detail in the math.
Anyways, my point was that having multiple theories for the same thing isn't necessarily conflicting. We also had 5 different String Theories until someone finally realized that they were all the same thing. And then when someone did realize that they were all the same thing, that strengthened the case for String Theory. Scientists are able to talk about gravity in different ways because the mechanism is unobservable. At least we think it is. If so, it makes no difference if its a particle or if gravity is just an intrinsic property of matter to bend spacetime. They give the same exact predictions. If they didn't, that is when we'd have a problem with our theory. But since they do and since we can't observe the mechanism, that's good enough for everyone else.

Your understanding of "a priori" is misguided. It is a term popularized by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism.

A priori and a posteriori

These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" (which must follow it).

I don't use words without knowing their meanings. Allow me to clarify. My use of a priori highlights the fact that you can't "prove" gravity in any epistemic sense. You can't write a proof on gravity. That's not how physics works, but that doesn't make it any less true.

There is no direct evidence that there is something small and invisible pulling things to the the ground, and no experiment has observed such a thing. If we go by pure priori reasoning, in fact, then we must conclude that the earth is rising upwards to cause this phenomenon.

See the above. We're not going by pure priori reasoning, because that's not physics. I've already said that, but it didn't seem to compute. If you limit yourself to priori reasoning, you will never be able to understand the universe in any great detail, and that prospect is personally upsetting.

If we step onto a chair and walk off of the edge and become inert while observing the surface of the earth carefully we see that the earth accelerates upwards to us. This is a direct observation of a mechanical action for gravity. We do not see anything pulling us down to the earth. The only observation from an inert position is that the earth is moving upwards. This is a strong empirical example for the mechanism of gravity.

In your frame of reference, the Earth is rises up to meet you, but in the Earth's frame, you fall down to meet it. What's so special about your frame of reference?

When standing upright we feel the earth pushing up upwards against our feet. If we pay attention we will feel that we are being pushed upwards by something. If we were take a baseball and and put it into an inert position by extending out our hand and releasing it into the air, we would see that we rise up with the earth to the level of the inert ball to meet it.

I've never observed that actually.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: November 29, 2017, 10:27:59 PM »

**remembers that we believe in celestial gravitation**

Not the same gravitation Kip Thorne received his Nobel prize for. I am pressed for time, I might come back to this point later.
A theory isn't "proven right" by the accuracy of its predictions.

Perhaps in pure mathematics, but not the case in the real world. Technically you can never "prove" most physical theories. Knowing that your model works 1 billion times in a row does not mathematically give you that it will work the 1 billion and 1 times in a row. I ask again, this time not rhetorically, how else might you judge a theory as being "right" or not? I have proposed using their predictions. Other possible options might include: praying to God and asking for the answers, looking up the solutions in the back of a text book, reading the universe's instruction manual... Help me our here.

A prediction of gravitational lensing is predicted by both bendy space and graviton theories, and an observation of gravitational lensing does not prove either mechanism.

We must have a true test of the mechanism. The problem is the mechanisms were just made up. No one really knows what form the mechanism might be.

Your assertion that we can predict things with the equations, so it must be true, is fallacious. If we make a theory called "invisible pusher fairies" and give it the same equations of action, does that prove that gravity is caused by "invisible pusher fairies"?

I haven't yet made any claims as to the nature of gravity, only that it exists and we can predict its behavior. It doesn't really matter what the mechanism behind it is, that does not in any way influence our ability to make predictions about the real world. You can call it "Spiderman 3 Was a Terrible Movie" if you'd like. If you take gravity and work with it mathematically, you reproduce the physics of the real world beautifully. I certainly have yet to see any other models, FE or not, that have even vaguely come close to its explanatory power. It is not "true" in some epistemic sense. You cannot say, “A priori, starting with the integers, we derive that gravity exists.” It’s a model; that’s what physics does. Physics doesn’t tell you what’s "true", physics doesn’t tell you what a priori the world has to look like, physics tells you this is a good model, and it fits the data, and to the degree that it doesn’t fit the data, it’s wrong. This isn’t something we derive; it is something we declare. We call it our model, we use it to calculate stuff, and we see if it fits the real world. And it does fit the real world.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: November 29, 2017, 05:37:35 PM »

Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?

Hardly fair! Only 200 individuals have received the Nobel prize; they clearly are a league of their own, and would never in a million years grace this forum with their presence. Furthermore, your post implies that every theory that has merit has won a Nobel prize, which is not true. It is worth mentioning though, that Kip Thorne won the Nobel prize very recently for the observation of gravitational waves. We've literally seen them. Saying gravity is not real, is like saying global warming is not real, Mr. Trump.

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

This is the same way that we view light. In some instances, light acts as a wave, and in others, it acts as a particle. We call this the wave-particle duality of light. See the double slit experiment if you're curious. We need both models to describe the behavior of light, and both models do give very accurate predictions. And how else might you judge a theory as being right or not if not from the accuracy of their predictions. You can't just know because you're God or something. So as far as we're concerned, both models are "correct" as far as we can determine what "correctness" is. And again I emphasize, we need both models. The case with gravity is completely analogous.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the flat earth theory explain the moon?
« on: November 27, 2017, 11:30:21 PM »
The moon is spherical, and I suppose by extension the sun is spherical as well, and yet for whatever reason the Earth is not. Only Earth is able to defy the laws of physics that set the heavenly bodies in motion.

"Perspective in the graphic arts is an approximate representation, generally on a flat surface, of an image as it is seen by the eye." I.e., you don't actually see in point perspective. It is a technique for artists to represent a three dimensional reality on a two dimensional surface, whether it be a canvas or a computer screen, to give the illusion of three dimensions. If we really did see in point perspective, I suspect you'd be citing from some sort of ophthalmology text book rather than a coloring book and video games.

Flat Earth Theory / The Coriolis Force
« on: November 27, 2017, 02:20:32 AM »
I'd like to propose a relatively simple experiment that could be done to prove the Earth is indeed round. Enter the Coriolis Force, close relative to the centrifugal force, apparently a real force (if you believe in that sort of thing) that snipers have to account for. It causes a small but certainly measurable projectile deflection that varies depending on your latitude and the direction you're facing. Assuming a round Earth model for a moment, the force disappears entirely at the equator.

In the case of a flat and rotating Earth, the Coriolis Force at the equator should not be zero, so in order to prove (or disprove) a round Earth model, all one needs to do is find the Coriolis Force at the equator.

In the case of a flat and non-rotating Earth, the Coriolis Force shouldn't even exist (since it arises as a result of rotation), and so in order to prove a round Earth model, all one needs to do is observe the Coriolis Force at any point not along the equator.

This is easier said than done, since you have to measure the effects of a force that's 1000 times weaker than gravity, but if it's that or shoot yourself into space and take a picture, this method is clearly more feasible.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of light
« on: November 26, 2017, 11:12:21 PM »
If the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.2 m/s, wouldn't we eventually reach the speed of light, and then beyond?
I'd like to know some thought about why the Earth is constantly accelerating, instead of going at a constant pace.

1. The Earth is accelerating only because it is constantly changing direction due to its orbit. That is it's velocity's magnitude stays (mostly) constant while it's direction changes.

2. I believe you are confusing the Earth's acceleration around the sun and the acceleration of objects close to the surface of Earth as they fall to the Earth.

The first few posts I read brought up relativity, and I really don't think relativity plays a huge role in what's going on. But since we did bring relativity up, as a fun fact even if you were to accelerate linearly forever, you would never reach the speed of light, but instead approach it asymptotically. This is because the energy required to increase velocity as you approach the speed of light increases without bounds.

Pages: [1]