*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2019, 02:16:26 PM »
To me it's clear Clifton is a) not a flat earther, and b) is obviously doing a thought experiment in order to demonstrate how to be more flexible in your thinking.  I'm sure he is not insisting that the planet is accelerating outward in all directions at g, because skydivers accelerate just as quickly toward the earth over Australia as they do over Canada.  The test for these things (whether they are some equivalency for mathematical simplification, or not) is usually the conservation of energy.  That the planet is expanding at an increasing rate such that the surface all over the globe exerts an acceleration of 9.8 m/(sec^2), or it is careening of in some convenient observer preferred direction at the same increasing rate does not conserve energy.

What he is saying, if you read the whole text available, is that the earth is preventing you from following your free path in the curved space around the mass of the planet, and he's just giving you another way of thinking about it - which is just a restatements of Einstein's equivalency.  And, there are limitations of to equivalency - the aforementioned conservation of energy is the prime, but not the only way of telling the difference between gravity and acceleration in real situations (as opposed to interesting, but academic thought experiments).
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2019, 02:27:13 PM »
We have a source from a physicist which says that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time.

Quote
the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

Do you have anything to support your opinion that he is wrong or mistating things?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 02:42:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2019, 02:57:11 PM »
We have a source from a physicist which says that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time. Do you have any sources to back up your opinion that he is wrong or mistating things?
I wouldn't say he is misstating things.  He is doing thought experiments.  Hence this is why he goes on to say: "For some, the beauty of this description is obvious.  For others it is the fact that it is possible to probe Einstein's theory experimentally that is most compelling".

As to whether or not that view is not a description of reality, I did that already.  Please avail yourself to the law of conservation of energy which states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant.  A skydiver that goes up, then comes back down due to gravity, conserves energy.  A planet (whole universe?) that accelerates at 9.8m/(sec^2) to catch the skydiver does not.  I did the calculations for this previously on this site.  The numbers are astonishing.  Sources for the discussion of conservation of energy are plentiful.  You can try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

So, let me throw the burden of 'proof' back on you (not that science is about proof, but some folk like to throw the term around).  If you can give me a  reasonable and self-complete hypotheses as to how energy is conserved in the FE UA concept (which I assume you are looking for justification for in Clifton's little thought experiment) and with which I cannot find a demonstrable physical flaw in, then I'll concede.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2019, 03:01:31 PM »
How have you determined that the system you're considering is isolated if you don't even know what the system is?
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 BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2019, 03:24:24 PM »
How have you determined that the system you're considering is isolated if you don't even know what the system is?
Are you talking about the situation Clifton presents, or are you talking about FE UA?  In Clifton's case he describes the system.  He's a physicist, so I assume he's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes and is following protocol.  If there was more to the system than what he mentions, he would have stated that.  Otherwise he would not be very credible, would he?  Then we can just dismiss his little treatise with nary a wave of the hand.

If you are talking about FE UA, then that is what I am asking Tom for.  Or you can pony up the hypothesis if you want to step up.

Or are you saying the FE community cannot provide a self-complete hypothesis for conservation of energy WRT UA?  Then UA it fails immediately, doesn't  it?

Wasn't it your chief editor of the wiki (AKA Tom) that said "If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence."  Can we have some evidence that energy is conserved in the concept of UA?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2019, 03:25:08 PM »
Where does he state that it's a thought experiment?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2019, 04:14:29 PM »
Are you talking [...]
If you are talking about FE UA [...]
Or are you saying [...]
I'm not saying anything. You are. You pointed out that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant while simultaneously stating that you don't know what system you're making claims about (A planet (whole universe?)).

I'm asking you to tidy up your claims, because I'd rather rely on you making yourself clear than risk putting words in your mouth.

Wasn't it your chief editor of the wiki (AKA Tom)
I don't see how inventing titles for Tom would absolve you of having to main internally consistent claims, nor do I see how Tom's position has any bearing on yours.
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 BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2019, 04:27:04 PM »
Where does he state that it's a thought experiment?
"For others it is the fact that it is possible to probe Einstein's theory experimentally that is most compelling"

Oh, and let me add to this the fact that he begins the whole discussion of the experiment with the words: "Think now about what all of this means in a practical situation.  Consider ..."
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 05:12:34 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2019, 04:29:28 PM »
while simultaneously stating that you don't know what system you're making claims about (A planet (whole universe?)).
Where did I state that I didn't know what system I'm making claims about?  I was clearly talking about a planet.  The parenthesis contained an allusion to FE AU.  Which also suffers the same problem.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 04:34:37 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2019, 04:34:37 PM »
Where did I state that I didn't know what system I'm making claims about?
I already provided you with the relevant quote: A planet (whole universe?)

If you do know which one it is, simply state it. The way you left it suggests you can't quite narrow it down. This is why I'm asking you to make yourself clear.
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 BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2019, 04:38:12 PM »
Where did I state that I didn't know what system I'm making claims about?
I already provided you with the relevant quote: A planet (whole universe?)

If you do know which one it is, simply state it. The way you left it suggests you can't quite narrow it down. This is why I'm asking you to make yourself clear.
See my edited response above.  I was talking about the planet system as described by Clifton and alluded to FE UA in parenthesis.  The suffer the same problem WRT energy conservation.  Nice straw man though Pete.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2019, 04:53:07 PM »
A "straw man"? Asking you to clarify your position while expressly avoiding assumptions is the very opposite of straw manning someone. It's a shame that you'd respond to basic scrutiny with immediate accusations, but let's try to carry on.

So, you wanted to talk about planets, but also made "an allusion" to a different discussion that could be had about the Universe. Excellent, we can work with that. While the former is pretty clear, I'm very interested as to whether you think the Universe is an isolated system. Your claims about UAT seem to rely on that assumption (feel free to elaborate if this is not the case), but it's a rather novel assumption without much mainstream support.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 04:56:46 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*

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2019, 05:30:20 PM »
A "straw man"? Asking you to clarify your position while expressly avoiding assumptions is the very opposite of straw manning someone. It's a shame that you'd respond to basic scrutiny with immediate accusations, but let's try to carry on.

So, you wanted to talk about planets, but also made "an allusion" to a different discussion that could be had about the Universe. Excellent, we can work with that. While the former is pretty clear, I'm very interested as to whether you think the Universe is an isolated system. Your claims about UAT seem to rely on that assumption (feel free to elaborate if this is not the case), but it's a rather novel assumption without much mainstream support.
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.

Now, the only thing we need to decide on it whether or not all the stuff subject to FE UA constitutes an isolated system, or are there things in the FE universe WRT which the earth and all celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/(s^2).
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2019, 09:32:45 PM »
Where does he state that it's a thought experiment?
"For others it is the fact that it is possible to probe Einstein's theory experimentally that is most compelling"

Oh, and let me add to this the fact that he begins the whole discussion of the experiment with the words: "Think now about what all of this means in a practical situation.  Consider ..."

I don't see where it's stated that the statements he gives do not represent what is occurring in General Relativity. The author clearly states, several times, that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time, and this is the cause for why bodies of different masses fall at the same rate in the Galileo experiment.

Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 09:46:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #74 on: December 04, 2019, 12:07:31 AM »
I don't see where it's stated that the statements he gives do not represent what is occurring in General Relativity.
Many of them do, but he's trying to dumb this down too much.

The author clearly states, several times, that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time
And that's where his analogy falls apart.  He is either using the same equivalency as Einstein, or he is trying to liken the acceleration caused by curved spacetime to that of centripetal acceleration.  I think the 2nd is more likely as it conserves energy.  However, even though centripetal acceleration accelerates the subject body toward a central point, the body does not move in that direction.  Neither is the rope/rod/string/whatever that is holding the subject and exerting the force that causes the acceleration shortening in that direction.  However, that is a two dimensional problem viewed from a three dimensional perspective. If we extend this to sapcetime then we are in a situation where the velocity is no longer spacial, but temporal and any 'acceleration' would also have to be unobservable to us.   So I think 'acceleration' is a real bad way to describe this for anyone who has little understanding GR.  Yes, the planet exerts a force on your feet, but it's not moving you anywhere due to that force.  In my opinion acceleration is a very poor choice of words to explain this in layman's terms.  It will conjure up images that are just not their.

In GR gravity is not a force, it is a curvature of space, but when two bodies try to get into the same piece of space, they hold each other out, and that is a force.  The same force we feel on our feet as the earth block us from following our free-fall path in spacetime..  I think this is a better way to put it.  Acceleration to most people implies movement, force does not.

and this is the cause for why bodies of different masses fall at the same rate in the Galileo experiment.
You don't need any more than newton's 2nd law of motion to explain this.


Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf
Thanks.  I've got dinner reservations for 7:30 -  I'll look into that tomorrow.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2019, 07:00:22 AM »
Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf
A paper literally entitled "The globe model".
Both sources are clearly globe earthers - the first one the brief synopsis of the book talks about how it applies to planetary motions.
So are you now a globe earther trying to understand GE or are you just cherry picking keywords which you think back up your worldview?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #76 on: December 04, 2019, 10:43:24 AM »
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.
I cannot find a source that agrees with you. Perhaps you'd like to provide one instead of just saying you're right repeatedly?

The consensus appears to be that it would be entirely meaningless to call the Universe an isolated system (since anything external to the Universe is undefined), but I'm happy for you to defend your case. Just, you know, actually say something more useful than "I am correct.       Yeah, I am very right, yes."

Now, the only thing we need to decide on it whether or not all the stuff subject to FE UA constitutes an isolated system, or are there things in the FE universe WRT which the earth and all celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/(s^2).
Right, you're going to have to make up your mind on this one. First you said that you don't know what the system is. When I asked you to clarify, you accused me of strawmanning you and declared that you obviously do know what it is. Now you're back to saying you don't know.

Please pick a line of argumentation and stick with it. It's extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation when you keep arguing with yourself.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 10:48:36 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*

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2019, 05:59:14 PM »
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.
I cannot find a source that agrees with you. Perhaps you'd like to provide one instead of just saying you're right repeatedly?

The consensus appears to be that it would be entirely meaningless to call the Universe an isolated system (since anything external to the Universe is undefined), but I'm happy for you to defend your case. Just, you know, actually say something more useful than "I am correct.       Yeah, I am very right, yes."

Now, the only thing we need to decide on it whether or not all the stuff subject to FE UA constitutes an isolated system, or are there things in the FE universe WRT which the earth and all celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/(s^2).
Right, you're going to have to make up your mind on this one. First you said that you don't know what the system is. When I asked you to clarify, you accused me of strawmanning you and declared that you obviously do know what it is. Now you're back to saying you don't know.

Please pick a line of argumentation and stick with it. It's extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation when you keep arguing with yourself.
Okay.

So, to bring this back on topic, what I want to know is if you can give me a  reasonable and self-complete hypotheses as to how energy is conserved in the FE UA concept with which I cannot find a demonstrable physical flaw in.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #78 on: December 04, 2019, 06:11:01 PM »
Okay.
A second friendly reminder that you're not currently in AR for a change. If you do not want to contribute to the discussion, there's no obligation for you to post.

what I want
That's great, but if you're not willing to defend your claims, you probably shouldn't be making them in the first place. You're welcome to retract them.

One of the "flaws" you're claiming relies on assumptions that you're refusing to justify. Naturally, one has to assume that you have a reason to refuse that.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 06:13:00 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*

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2019, 06:27:48 PM »
Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf
Yeah, he is just saying the same thing will a little more rigor.  And I have no argument in his math, just in the nomenclature used in describing his findings.  This paperer has an advantage in that it's intended for folks that have some GR under their belt, so they will take his meaning.  However, if I were to tell my wife the earth is accelerating her upward and is accelerating outward in all directions she would think I'm bonkers.  The earth is clearly not increasing in size at an ever increasing rate.  AS he takes you through the math Berry provides the results then states "This form eerily mirrors the form of Newton’s gravity." And it does, in fact it looks just the the acceleration due to gravity, but you have to realize that he began his calculations with the stipulation " ... our  fixed  point  on  the  surface  of  the Earth doesn’t move along any of the last 3 coordinates,r,θ, orφ.  So, its spacetime path and 4-velocity must be directed along the t direction."  That fact does not change through the calculation the acceleration (actualy, 4-acceleration).  So unlike implication of normal acceleration (3-acceleration), nothing is actually moving or increasing in 3-velocity WRT the center of the earth.

BTW, observe the 4-vextor that is the result 〈0,GM/(R^2),0,0〉.  This can only occur on a globe since the t,θ and φ dimensions are invariant so there is no preferred direction.

I have another question:  Does the flat earth even have a Schwarzchild radius?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.