*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #60 on: July 03, 2019, 11:15:15 PM »
Can you reference experiments that were conducted in a vaccum chamber?
Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lliBy-S4ZPA

It seems that he forgot to take it to a different latitude to check the weight change.
Why would latitude be relevant when the experiment is looking at the effects of air pressure? ???
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #61 on: July 03, 2019, 11:31:49 PM »
Can you reference experiments that were conducted in a vaccum chamber?
Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lliBy-S4ZPA

It seems that he forgot to take it to a different latitude to check the weight change.
Why would latitude be relevant when the experiment is looking at the effects of air pressure? ???

Because the weight variation by latitude experiments you guys constantly reference that 'disproves UA' involves measuring the weight of a mass in one environment and taking the mass and scale to another environment and looking for the difference of a fraction of a percent.

It is astounding that these experiments are uncontrolled for atmosphere. A search for vaccum controlled tests of this bring up zero results for me. Perhaps because they were done 300 years ago and they are only now casually done for educational purposes.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 11:38:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #62 on: July 04, 2019, 12:47:50 AM »
Can you reference experiments that were conducted in a vaccum chamber?
Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lliBy-S4ZPA

It seems that he forgot to take it to a different latitude to check the weight change.
Why would latitude be relevant when the experiment is looking at the effects of air pressure? ???

Because the weight variation by latitude experiments you guys constantly reference that 'disproves UA' involves measuring the weight of a mass in one environment and taking the mass and scale to another environment and looking for the difference of a fraction of a percent.
Hmmm...  I thought that we were discussing gravitational mass vs inertial mass.  Perhaps we should save the "gravity varies by latitude" for another thread.

It is astounding that these experiments are uncontrolled for atmosphere. A search for vaccum controlled tests of this bring up zero results for me. Perhaps because they were done 300 years ago and they are only now casually done for educational purposes.
I just provided you with a video of an experiment controlled for atmosphere, so your claim that they don't exist is disproven.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 12:49:50 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #63 on: July 04, 2019, 04:28:08 AM »
I just provided you with a video of an experiment controlled for atmosphere, so your claim that they don't exist is disproven.

You had responded to an exchange between Salviati and I about the weight variation by latitude experiments. How would the experiment you provided contribute to that?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 04:29:53 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #64 on: July 04, 2019, 09:42:07 AM »
It literally says the opposite of that ???

See this conversation on stack exchange:

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3396/different-gravitational-and-inertial-mass
That entire conversation is basically "hey, what if the universe worked differently, then we'd observe different things".
Well yes. Obviously.
What if light and sound swapped speeds? You'd hear thunder before you saw the lightening, not the other way around. You'd observe different things.
We can all do thought experiments like that. Not clear what your point is.

If objects with more mass took the same force to move then yes, they'd accelerate to earth faster. But they don't. And it would be a bit odd if they did - it would be as easy to lift a car as a penny.
If gravity pulled all objects with the same force then again, objects with less mass would fall faster. But again, if a force is caused by mass it makes sense that more mass equals more force.
I don't even see how a universe would work if all objects attracted each other with the same force.

The force required to accelerate an object is proportional to the object's mass.
The force of gravity acting on an object is also proportional to the object's mass.
This means objects of different mass fall to earth at the same rate.

Asking why these are properties of the universe is like asking why the speeds of light and sound are what they are.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #65 on: July 05, 2019, 04:26:08 PM »
Alternate reality? It sounds like he's just talking about Newton's laws from Wikipedia to me. Take a look:



It says the same thing here at the University of Pittsburgh:

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_August_14_2018/general_relativity/index.html

Quote



A two pound mass feels twice the gravitational force than does a one pound mass in the same gravitational field, since it has twice the gravitational mass.



One might expect that, if we drop the two masses, the two pound mass would fall faster because it is acted on by twice the gravitational force.

A second factor comes into play that erases the effect of the increase. In Newtonian gravitation theory, a body with a two pound gravitational mass will also have a two pound inertial mass.

The inertial mass of the body tells us how much acceleration the body acquires when acted on by a force. (The precise relation is acceleration = force/mass.)

Thus, in passing from the one pound to the two pound mass, we have doubled both the inertial and the gravitational mass. So we have doubled the gravitational force, but halved the responsiveness of the mass to the gravitational forces.

The outcome is that both masses fall with exactly the same acceleration.

See the underlined above -- "A second factor comes into play that erases the effect of the increase". The second factor that comes into play is inertia and inertial resistance which equalizes the different gravitational pulls to the same rate of acceleration.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2019, 09:02:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #66 on: July 06, 2019, 12:39:27 AM »
I just provided you with a video of an experiment controlled for atmosphere, so your claim that they don't exist is disproven.

You had responded to an exchange between Salviati and I about the weight variation by latitude experiments. How would the experiment you provided contribute to that?
It shows the effects of atmospheric pressure on weight in a controlled environment.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #67 on: July 06, 2019, 11:23:03 AM »
See the underlined above -- "A second factor comes into play that erases the effect of the increase". The second factor that comes into play is inertia and inertial resistance which equalizes the different gravitational pulls to the same rate of acceleration.
Yes. A 2lb (a pox on you lot and the imperial system!) ball feels twice as much gravitational force as a 1lb ball). But it takes twice as much force to accelerate a 2lb ball as a 1lb one. These things cancel out. The conversation you linked to above was a thought experiment about “what if they didn’t”. Well then we’d experience different things, as we would in my thought experiment about the speeds of sound and light swapping.

I’m not clear what your point is. If your point is “if the universe worked differently then things would be different” then yeah, obviously.

If your point is “isn’t it an amazing coincidence that these two things are equal” then I don’t know, that’s a bit above my level of physics (and, with respect, yours too). But it makes sense to me that a force which is attractive between two masses increases as the masses do. And it makes sense that a more massive object takes more force to accelerate. The consequence of these two things is that objects of different mass accelerate in a gravitational field at the same rate but that is not unique to earth. It has been shown to be the same on the moon.

And I’d be careful about claiming “amazing coincidences” as a way of attacking the heliocentric model when your model relies on things like some weird effect making the sun appear the exact same angular size and move at a constant angular speed despite the distance to it being about 3 times further at sunrise and sunset as it would be when directly overhead. The same would apply to the moon.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 12:56:08 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #68 on: July 08, 2019, 01:22:39 AM »
If uA is comstantly accelerating, wouldn't we approach the speed of light? Einstein says tht mass increases with velocity, oso wouldn't UA need an ever increasing force? At the speed of light, the mass and thus force required is infinite. According to science web sites, by about 20% of the speed of light, significant energy goes into increasing the mass.

So the FE universe is an infinitely long cylinder which had better be an absolute vacuum, since even a single hydrogen atom will go through everything and create ionizing radiation, a small rock at that speed might make a dinosaur killing level of explosion. At some point, we are going the speed of a particle in an atim smasher. Better not hit anything.

So we have an effectively infinite length cylinder that we know nothing about, and the conventional 3 space outside the cylinder, if it exists, we know nothing about. The known universe on FE with UA is 8000 miles wide and infinitely long, and is damn straight and empty. An unknown force (exponentially increasing?) pushes us along this oh so perfect tube and we never reach a speed where our mass is a problem, even after thousands of years accelerating at 9.8m/sec2.

Meanwhile, on the dome, we have stars, the sun and the moon, who are also propelled. The sun produces a measurable amount of energy over the face of the earth, as studied by makers and users of solar cells. In the disk/dome model, we have all that energy coming from a sun 35 miles across. The energy in that 35 mi sun is about like a million times as dense as the real sun. No explanation of this physics from this model, but somehow, the force goes through the disk and through the air that gets scarcer and scarcer, pretyty much none at 3000 mi. Yet that sun theat produce millions of times more energy per square foot than the real sun. Must be pretty heavy, like infinitely heavy. To hold that weight and survive the heat, that dome must be miraculously strong, or there is completely unknown physics.

I would love to hear the explanation after you have figured all this out. What is the force, how does it not get to light speed, how does it operate on the things above us, why aren't we infinitely massive (and zero length). What is outside the cylinder, what is the force, how does the cylinder stay perfectly empty.

Have I got this right?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #69 on: July 08, 2019, 11:16:37 AM »
If uA is comstantly accelerating, wouldn't we approach the speed of light?
In what frame of reference?

Have I got this right?
I'll reserve judgement on your first question until you've disambuguated it, but otherwise: no, most of what you said contradicts mainstream physics. You also filled the gaps in your understanding of FET with your imagination - never a good start.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 11:20:06 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2019, 08:16:53 PM »
If uA is comstantly accelerating, wouldn't we approach the speed of light?
In what frame of reference?

The same frame of reference that measured the acceleration (UA).
Simple, isn't it?

You can even measure acceleration of a car if you are a passenger.
Accumulate acceleration and time, you can calculate actual speed from the moment you started measure it, as speed=time=0.
In this case, there is no frame of reference, other than time.

If you say approaching light speed time changes to avoid reach such speed, and if you remember that acceleration is delta-speed over time, and if time changes, then the acceleration is not constant any longer.  But we don't see it change along the time, still 9.8m/s² at sea level for eons.  Impossible.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #71 on: July 09, 2019, 01:23:03 PM »
The same frame of reference that measured the acceleration (UA).
Simple, isn't it?
Not at all - that completely ruins the thought experiment. Given that such a frame of reference would only exist a small distance away from the Earth, this would preclude a scenario in which the speed of light is attainable.

So, I ask again: In what frame of reference do you propose this would occur? This time, focus on an answer that's plausible, rather than just "simple".
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 01:26:13 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #72 on: July 09, 2019, 01:38:39 PM »
One thing I'm curious about when it comes to UA.
You use Special Relativity to explain why the earth doesn't go faster than the speed of light but why cherry pick Special Relativity as correct when you dismiss so much mainstream science?

Why not just redefine gravity as a force which acts downwards on objects but whose power reduces with altitude - to the point where celestial objects are not affected and thus don't fall.
You could even make the force dependent on something like the thickness or density of the earth.
That would explain differences in g with altitude and latitude

With UA you have to either deny those effects exist or use other mechanisms to explain them.
If you can have EA which bends light upwards, why not gravity which pulls objects on earth downwards?

It wouldn't explain the motion of the sun/moon/stars/planets but neither does UA.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #73 on: July 09, 2019, 01:55:43 PM »
Uh, that's not how any of this works. We're working on establishing what actually occurs, not picking explanations to satisfy your whims. You can find plenty of the latter on metabunk if that's what you're after.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #74 on: July 09, 2019, 02:03:18 PM »
Uh, that's not how any of this works. We're working on establishing what actually occurs.
And how do you do that? The whole premise of UA is that is would be equivalent to a force acting downwards and actually you can't tell which it is. Right?
On your Wiki page about UA you have a section about the Equivalence Principle which explains you can't tell.
So how do you establish which it is?

I mean, the RE argument would be "we've been to space, we've observed the globe earth", but if you dismiss that then how do you tell whether the earth is accelerating upwards forever by some unknown force or whether earth exerts a force which doesn't attract towards the centre of mass as mainstream science but acts in a downward direction.

What experiment can you do or observation can you make which distinguishes between those two things?

Quote
not picking explanations to satisfy your whims.

It's not about satisfying my whims, it's about explaining observations. Does my idea not explain observations as well if not better than UA?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2019, 02:12:20 PM »
Does my idea not explain observations as well if not better than UA?
Precisely.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #76 on: July 09, 2019, 02:20:46 PM »
Does my idea not explain observations as well if not better than UA?
Precisely.
I'm unclear on your response. Are you saying UA explains observations better?
Can you elaborate? Which observations does UA explain that my idea does not?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #77 on: July 09, 2019, 03:51:22 PM »
Can you elaborate?
No, I will not let you distract the thread from my question. You can read up on the basics at your leisure.

Meanwhile, I'm here to get a clear answer to the following:

The same frame of reference that measured the acceleration (UA).
Simple, isn't it?
Not at all - that completely ruins the thought experiment. Given that such a frame of reference would only exist a small distance away from the Earth, this would preclude a scenario in which the speed of light is attainable.

So, I ask again: In what frame of reference do you propose this would occur? This time, focus on an answer that's plausible, rather than just "simple".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline rpt

  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #78 on: July 17, 2019, 08:31:54 AM »
Gravity does change in different gravity environments, however. Thus gravitational mass will not be equal to inertial mass.
You seem to be confusing gravitational mass with weight. On Jupiter an object will weigh more than it does on earth but its gravitational mass will stay the same.

A very wild and surprising coincidence, indeed, that Gravitational Mass should exactly equal Inertial Mass on Earth to the best resolution of modern physics.
This equivalence is not unique to Earth.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #79 on: July 17, 2019, 06:01:12 PM »
Gravity does change in different gravity environments, however. Thus gravitational mass will not be equal to inertial mass.
You seem to be confusing gravitational mass with weight. On Jupiter an object will weigh more than it does on earth but its gravitational mass will stay the same.

Can you provide a source for that statement?

This source says that gravitational mass is determined by a weight scale:

Quote
Gravitational mass is the mass of a body as determined by its response to the force of gravity, such as done on a balance scale.

...

Summary

Gravitational mass of an object is determined by using a balance scale to compare its mass with a unit mass. Inertial mass is the measurement of the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration. Gravitational mass and inertial mass have been shown to be equivalent.

Weight is defined as the force of gravity on a mass. A spring scale can be used to measure weight.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae305.cfm

Quote
Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the force of gravity of an unknown mass to the force of gravity of a known mass. This is typically done with some sort of balance scale.

http://www.bozemanscience.com/ap-phys-010-gravitational-mass

Quote
Paul Andersen explains how the gravitational mass is a measure of the force on an object in a gravitational field. The gravitational mass is based on the amount of material in an object and can be measured to a standard kg using a balance.

On Jupiter an object will weigh more... therefore that object will have a greater gravitational mass.

On another note, an interesting quote from Wikipedia is found:

Quote
Inertial vs. gravitational mass

Although inertial mass, passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass are conceptually distinct, no experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any difference between them. In classical mechanics, Newton's third law implies that active and passive gravitational mass must always be identical (or at least proportional), but the classical theory offers no compelling reason why the gravitational mass has to equal the inertial mass. That it does is merely an empirical fact.

Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity starting with the assumption of the intentionality of correspondence between inertial and passive gravitational mass, and that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them, in essence the equivalence principle.

'Gravitational mass' does not exist, only inertial mass.

https://www.echaandscience.com/the-post-modern-modification-of-the-weak-equivalence-principle/

Quote
The characteristics of gravitational mass are the same as that of inertial mass.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 08:01:44 PM by Tom Bishop »