Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #100 on: May 19, 2023, 08:15:53 AM »
[

LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.

Stick to your gyroscopes, eh?  ;D

I’ll stick to maths (which doesn’t equal reality, of course, but rather models it, and provides us with a means to understand our world), physics, and yes, gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.

You stick to public demonstrations that you slept through your physics and maths classes, and we’ll both be happy.

Good day.


SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #101 on: May 19, 2023, 09:06:53 AM »
[

LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.

Stick to your gyroscopes, eh?  ;D

I’ll stick to maths (which doesn’t equal reality, of course, but rather models it, and provides us with a means to understand our world), physics, and yes, gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.

You stick to public demonstrations that you slept through your physics and maths classes, and we’ll both be happy.

Good day.



QED.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10621
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #102 on: May 19, 2023, 11:48:07 AM »
The depths of your misunderstanding of very basic Newtonian physics is so profound that I think it's probably best if you work on that before you dip your toes in the wonderful world of relativity, as you have in some of your other posts here.

The sensation, or state, of weightlessness occurs when there is no force acting between the component parts of a body. For a human, we 'feel' weightless when there is no tension or compression in our body - witness the floating hair of the girl in your vomit comet photo. This can either be because there is no force acting on us at all - a pretty much impossible situation - or because all of the particles that we are made of are accelerating at the same rate due to some external force. If we accelerate due to some external influence, like going up in a lift, we feel the acceleration because the lift only applies a force to our feet. Our feet have to accelerate our ankles, our ankles push up through our legs, hips, etc - there is compression in our bodies due to this transmitted force. But if we fall due to gravity, we feel weightless because all of the particles in our bodies experience a force proportionate to their mass, meaning there is no tension or compression.

You can see this in your balloon diagram.

At rest, a balloon filled with water will sag down, as the elastic material stretches to counter the weight of the contents. In freefall, the water and the balloon are all being acted on by gravity in proportion to their respective masses, so the tension in the balloon returns it to a natural sphere.

There's nothing in any of this that contradicts the equivalence principle, or that falsifies our typical, newtonian understanding of gravity.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Newtonian Gravity does not work as a coherent physical theory and has been long discredited. The weightlessness and simultaneous falling of between bodies of different masses in Newtonian theory does not work without absurd mechanisms.

See this article by astrophysicist Paul Sutter:

https://www.space.com/40920-relativity-power-of-equivalence.html

Quote
Einstein's first insight into the nature of gravity was to put a new twist on an old idea. In Isaac Newton's original mathematical description of gravity ("OG"?), there's an odd coincidence when it comes to the concept of "mass." In one famous equation, F = ma, mass is your inertia — how much oomph it takes to shove you along. In Newton's other equation on gravity, mass is more like gravitational charge — the level of attraction you might feel toward the Earth, for example.

Objects with twice the mass feel twice the attraction toward the Earth, and should therefore fall twice as quickly. But years back, Galileo Galilei had conclusively shown that they don't: Neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

Thus for Newton's theory to work, inertial mass had to be the same as gravitational mass, but only by sheer coincidence: there was no reason for this equality to hold.
For an object with twice the mass, the Earth may pull on it twice as strongly, but this is perfectly canceled out by the fact that it's now twice as hard to get the object moving. Inertial and gravitational masses move in perfect lockstep.

This odd correspondence had long been a puzzle in gravitational circles, but in 1907, Einstein took it one step further. The physicist imagined what would happen if you were to fall from a great height. Again neglecting air resistance, your inertial and gravitational masses would cancel, making you feel perfectly weightless, as if there were no gravity at all. But zero-gravity environments are precisely the playground of Special Relativity, the theory he had cooked up just a couple years prior that wove our conceptions of space and time into the unified fabric of spacetime.

To Einstein, this was a major clue. Lurking in the shadows of gravity was his precious special relativity and the essential concept of space-time, and what made that realization possible was the elevation of the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses into a fundamental principle, rather than the awkward afterthought it had been.

Newtonian Gravity requires a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence to work. This is an ad-hoc mechanism to explain physical phenomena. As written by the astrophysicist above, under a plain interpretation of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects, the body with twice the mass should fall faster.

In RE Theory's Newtonian Gravity the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is also what causes freefall weightlessness. This is the explanation for why astronauts are weightless in Round Earth Theory's Newtonian Gravity:

https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html

Quote
It was while pondering this problem that Einstein hit upon what he later described as "the happiest thought of my life." If began when he suddenly saw new significance in a commonplace of Newtonian gravity. A body in free fall in Newtonian gravity does not feel its own weight. This effect is very familiar to us now. We have all watched space-walkers floating weightlessly outside their capsules. They are in free fall above the earth, orbiting with their space stations, and that free fall cancels their weight.

This effect came about from an apparently accidental agreement of two quantities in Newtonian theory: the inertial mass of a body happens to equal its gravitational mass exactly. Einstein now believed that this equality could be no accident. He needed to find a gravitation theory in which this equality is a necessity.

See this slide from Introduction to Cosmology by the 4th Cosmology School at Cracow, Poland:

« Last Edit: May 19, 2023, 04:21:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #103 on: May 19, 2023, 04:42:47 PM »

You have no idea what you are talking about. Newtonian Gravity does not work as a coherent physical theory and has been long discredited. The weightlessness and simultaneous falling of between bodies of different masses in Newtonian theory does not work without absurd mechanisms.


I very much do know what I'm talking about.

Earlier in this thread, you said (when discussing the zero g hair picture):

Quote
If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms "down", how could the atoms in the hair flow freely up and down without resistance in free-fall? Surely if she were to mold her hair into a certain shape it should  not flow up and down freely without resistance if there were a phenomenon pulling all atoms downwards.

In a situation where you are losing a game tug-of-war with an elephant and are being pulled along, any time you pull against the rope it creates resistance against the direction you are being pulled in. If the atoms in the hair are all being pulled down towards the earth they should not be allowed to float freely up and down without resistance. Yet water, hair, and various types of materials act weightless in a zero-g freefall flight.

All of this and more is easy evidence that the true physical nature of gravity is that of an upwardly accelerating earth.

This is simply incorrect - much like the slinky video people, you are publicly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. There is nothing in Newtonian understandings of gravity or F=MA etc that is at odds with what we observe in freefall, for example. Likewise, the hypothetical '1g lift' thought experiment is spot on - you would not be able to tell the difference between that scenario or what we experience on earth. To that end, your UA idea works on one level - if the earth was endlessly accelerating upwards, there would indeed be the same 'experience' for the people living on its surface. There are, of course, other reasons why that theory is utterly absurd - not relevant here - but the premise of equivalence is entirely sound.

You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works. The issue isn't that it is wrong, per se, but rather that there is something more fundamental going on - it doesn't explain everything. For that, we need more modern tools - enter relativity etc.

I wasn't claiming that the science ends with Newton. My point is that if you don't understand the basics - which you clearly don't - there is little point in lifting the lid on the more advanced stuff.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10621
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #104 on: May 19, 2023, 05:00:21 PM »
Quote from: SteelyBob
This is simply incorrect - much like the slinky video people, you are publicly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. There is nothing in Newtonian understandings of gravity or F=MA etc that is at odds with what we observe in freefall, for example.

The above quotes provided by the astrophysicist at space.com and by pitt.edu show the problem with the effect that causes weightlessness - the separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence. Newtonian Gravity was rejected as incoherent because of this.

After describing the issues with Newtonian Gravity the space.com article goes on to describe Einstein's "Happiest Thought" that a man would not experience his weight in freefall as a sticking point. Einstein also repeated this thought as his basis for his theories and principle on numerous occasions. If this were cleanly explained in Newtonian Gravity and was of no relevance, why would space.com segway to this curiosity of Einstein? Obviously this does matter and the issue here is a matter of understanding and reading comprehension on your part.

You have cited nothing. On this forum you continuously post and cite only yourself as your source.

Quote from: SteelyBob
You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works.

Actually those things use Newtonian gravity + the absurd mechanisms like the separation of inertial and gravitational masses that require it to work. It was on basis of this ad-hoc mechanism that the theory was discredited. The theory does not work without those mechanisms and would otherwise make blatantly wrong predictions, as explained by the above space.com article.

A theory that works is a different matter than it being discredited as an incoherent theory. You have a low comprehension of this and are using circular reasoning to justify something that has been discredited.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2023, 01:57:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #105 on: May 19, 2023, 08:17:56 PM »
Quote from: SteelyBob
This is simply incorrect - much like the slinky video people, you are publicly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. There is nothing in Newtonian understandings of gravity or F=MA etc that is at odds with what we observe in freefall, for example.

The above quotes provided by the astrophysicist at space.com and by pitt.edu show the problem with the effect that causes weightlessness - the separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence. Newtonian Gravity was rejected as incoherent because of this.

After describing the issues with Newtonian Gravity the space.com article goes on to describe Einstein's "Happiest Thought" that a man would not experience his weight in freefall as a sticking point. Einstein also repeated this thought as his basis for his theories and principle on numerous occasions. If this were cleanly explained in Newtonian Gravity and was of no relevance, why would space.com segway to this curiosity of Einstein? Obviously this does matter and the issue here is a matter of understanding and reading comprehension on your part.

You have cited nothing. On this forum you continuously post and cite only yourself as your source.

Quote
You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works.

Actually those things use Newtonian gravity + the absurd mechanisms like the separation of inertial and gravitational masses that require it to work. It was on basis of this ad-hoc mechanism that the theory was discredited. The theory does not work without those mechanisms and would otherwise make blatantly wrong predictions, as explained by the above space.com article.

A theory that works is a different matter than it being discredited as an incoherent theory. You have a low comprehension of this and are using circular reasoning to justify something that has been discredited.

Tom I would like to thank you for the pitt.edu article, it's most interesting as an introduction to the development of Einstein's thinking. However, I must ask if you've read it through yourself? You claim Newtonian gravitational theory has been "discredited as incoherent", but that same article clearly says "...Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. I'm still not sure what your difficulty with the equivalence principle is: that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent is a great mystery?? There are still mysteries that scientific enquiry hasn't solved...
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10621
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #106 on: May 19, 2023, 08:27:13 PM »
Tom I would like to thank you for the pitt.edu article, it's most interesting as an introduction to the development of Einstein's thinking. However, I must ask if you've read it through yourself? You claim Newtonian gravitational theory has been "discredited as incoherent", but that same article clearly says "...Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. I'm still not sure what your difficulty with the equivalence principle is: that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent is a great mystery?? There are still mysteries that scientific enquiry hasn't solved...

You and SteelyBob are arguing on basis of "Newtonian Gravity works for X". The issue is not whether Newtonian Gravity works (putting aside that neither it or GR works for the Three Body Problem). The issue is whether it is a coherent theory with ad-hoc mechanisms to make it work. The space.com article clearly relates that there are forced mechanisms to make it work, and that it would otherwise make drastically wrong predictions.

The question of whether Newtonian Gravity can work to build bridges is immaterial to the ad-hoc mechanisms in it which allow it to work. It was discredited on basis of the ad-hoc mechanisms.

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #107 on: May 19, 2023, 09:21:14 PM »

The above quotes provided by the astrophysicist at space.com and by pitt.edu show the problem with the effect that causes weightlessness - the separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence. Newtonian Gravity was rejected as incoherent because of this.

After describing the issues with Newtonian Gravity the space.com article goes on to describe Einstein's "Happiest Thought" that a man would not experience his weight in freefall as a sticking point. Einstein also repeated this thought as his basis for his theories and principle on numerous occasions. If this were cleanly explained in Newtonian Gravity and was of no relevance, why would space.com segway to this curiosity of Einstein? Obviously this does matter and the issue here is a matter of understanding and reading comprehension on your part.

You have cited nothing. On this forum you continuously post and cite only yourself as your source.

Quote
You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works.

Actually those things use Newtonian gravity + the absurd mechanisms like the separation of inertial and gravitational masses that require it to work. It was on basis of this ad-hoc mechanism that the theory was discredited. The theory does not work without those mechanisms and would otherwise make blatantly wrong predictions, as explained by the above space.com article.

A theory that works is a different matter than it being discredited as an incoherent theory. You have a low comprehension of this and are using circular reasoning to justify something that has been discredited.

The point that you are spectacularly missing is that the interesting equality of gravitational and inertial mass is not in dispute; nor is the subsequent evolution of scientific thinking in this area. It’s all good - there’s no argument there. You’ve instead focused on the example of freefall - regardless of your views on Einstein’s work, the fact remains that in a scenario where inertial and gravitational mass are identical, the hair in that freefall picture is behaving exactly as we would expect…if we understand basic maths and physics. You do not understand, which is why you are claiming a difference.

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #108 on: May 19, 2023, 09:52:41 PM »
This is what SillyBob believes physics is:



This is what physics actually is:



There are quantum ""physicists"" who will tell you that the bullets aren't actually hitting anything, and they have a mathematical model to prove it LOL.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2023, 09:54:37 PM by Dual1ty »

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #109 on: May 19, 2023, 11:20:46 PM »
gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.


SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #110 on: May 20, 2023, 06:18:46 AM »
gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.



That’s a great demonstration of precession. Thanks for sharing.

The same principle is used in aircraft directional gyros to correct for the earth’s rotation - known as the drift or lat nut, as it needs to be adjusted for latitude.

https://www.pilot18.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2-INS-Gyro-Instruments.pdf

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #111 on: May 20, 2023, 08:08:52 AM »
gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.



That’s a great demonstration of precession. Thanks for sharing.

The same principle is used in aircraft directional gyros to correct for the earth’s rotation - known as the drift or lat nut, as it needs to be adjusted for latitude.

https://www.pilot18.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2-INS-Gyro-Instruments.pdf

"It izh spinin and it izh precesin like our planet Errth!" :D

Ok, SillyBob the False Axiom Guy - please stay on topic because this thread isn't about the gyroscopic pear Earth. Or just leave and be a gyroscopic pear Earth believer somewhere else, which is always an option.