Gravitational Waves
« on: February 11, 2016, 08:02:56 PM »
So the discovery of gravitational waves was confirmed today. You guys don't believe in gravity, so I was wondering what your thoughts were on this. Is this just totally fraudulent?

Offline UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet

  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • The Moon orbits spherical Earth!
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2016, 09:14:07 PM »
So the discovery of gravitational waves was confirmed today. You guys don't believe in gravity, so I was wondering what your thoughts were on this. Is this just totally fraudulent?
I'm sure they would say something similar as "How would you know it's not another government hoax to invest in their pseudoscience?"
The size of the Solar system if the Moon were only 1 pixel:
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2016, 09:29:59 PM »
Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2016, 10:13:06 PM »
Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.

How do they differ?

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Gravitational Waves
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2016, 10:17:38 PM »
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass. Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2016, 10:40:05 PM »
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass. Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.

Ok. What leads you to this distinction? What sources do you have regarding your definition of gravity?

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2016, 11:15:27 PM »
Physics leads me to this distinction. Physics is the source for your second question as well, although I admittedly made it sound more interesting to better reflect reality.

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2016, 01:24:42 AM »
They aren't mutually exclusive though.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2016, 02:53:37 AM »
They aren't mutually exclusive though.

I don't see why you would assume Junker is saying they are.  That they are not mutually exclusive does not mean that they must both exist.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Daguerrohype

  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • ISBN-10: 0552133256
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2016, 09:20:00 AM »
Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass.

I'm an object with mass. So is the earth. Therefore gravitation is the attraction between me and the earth.

Is that correct?
Big Smiley Face

Offline UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet

  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • The Moon orbits spherical Earth!
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2016, 01:15:28 PM »
Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.
Most Physicist doesn't accept the existence of gravitons, which is irrelevant in this thread discussing the discovery of gravity waves confirming prediction from General Relativity.
The size of the Solar system if the Moon were only 1 pixel:
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2016, 02:26:40 PM »
Is that correct?
I don't know. Have you measured it?


Most Physicist doesn't accept the existence of gravitons, which is irrelevant in this thread discussing the discovery of gravity waves confirming prediction from General Relativity.
Except that "gravity waves" were not discovered.

*

Offline Daguerrohype

  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • ISBN-10: 0552133256
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2016, 02:59:04 PM »
Is that correct?
I don't know. Have you measured it?

I'm applying your statement re objects with mass to two specific objects, viz, me and the earth. I'm not stating what the strength of that gravitation might be. Only that on the strength of your assertion, it exists.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse when I ask, what is the "it" that I might or might not have measured?
Big Smiley Face

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2016, 05:40:57 PM »
Junker, can you stop being deliberately obtuse? You can't say things like "physics is my source", that's nonsensical. If you're going to make some sort of point, then just make your point instead of forcing the rest of us to drag it out of you. Your conduct is absolutely horrible for conducting productive conversations right now.

So you've made some distinction between "gravity" and "gravitation". Fine. Can you explain how that's relevant to the discovery of gravitational waves? If you're going to claim that gravitational waves haven't actually been discovered, can you provide a reason to believe that?

From the language in your first post, it seemed like you were implying that "gravitation" is real while "gravity" is not (because gravitons haven't been discovered or something? again, I'm being forced to guess because you haven't actually said anything meaningful yet). I would like to note that in conversations about this with other FE'ers, it seems that when they dismiss gravity, they deny the existence of an attractive force between massive object as well as whatever your other interpretation is supposed to mean.

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2016, 09:15:18 PM »
Junker, can you stop being deliberately obtuse?
I am not sure what you are referring to.

Quote
If you're going to make some sort of point, then just make your point
Already done.

Quote
Your conduct is absolutely horrible for conducting productive conversations right now.
I felt like the conversation was going just fine. Not sure why you are so upset.

Quote
So you've made some distinction between "gravity" and "gravitation".
Yes

Quote
Can you explain how that's relevant to the discovery of gravitational waves?
Gravity isn't relevant to the alleged discovery of gravitational waves. That was my point.

Quote
If you're going to claim that gravitational waves haven't actually been discovered
I never made such a claim. Einstein said they weren't real, not me. Are you suggesting you are smarter than Einstein was?

Quote
...seemed like you were implying that
You've inserted a whole lot of unneeded assumption and conjecture here.

Quote
I would like to note that in conversations about this with other FE'ers, it seems that when they dismiss gravity, they deny the existence of an attractive force between massive object as well as whatever your other interpretation is supposed to mean.
That is great, but the position of FES is that there is at least some gravitational influence.

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2016, 09:55:05 PM »
Physics leads me to this distinction. Physics is the source for your second question as well, although I admittedly made it sound more interesting to better reflect reality.
Can you expand or be more specific on this? Physics is a very broad term. What physics makes this distinction and how? How, in physics, could a force be unobservable?

Feel free to cite sources.

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2016, 09:58:22 PM »
What physics makes this distinction and how?

GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2016, 03:52:43 AM »
What physics makes this distinction and how?
GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.
So, I look up the Wiki.
Quote from: Flat Earth Wiki, "Universal Acceleration"
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

Mind you, then I looked a bit further:
Quote from:  "Universal Acceleration, Tidal Effects"
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

This raises some serious questions:
  • If "gravitation exists in other celestial bodies", why not between bodies on the surface of the earth, including the considerable mass of even the Flat Earth.
  • The moon (sun too?) and stars cause gravity to vary with altitude. But the moon (sun) and stars rotate at various rates above the Flat Earth, but the the variation of gravity with altitude has no reported daily or monthly variation.
  • Gravity on earth also varies with latitude. This is explained on the Globe by the rotation and differing radii.
    If this is going to be explained away as (2), the same objections apply.
There are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2016, 05:02:42 AM »
If "gravitation exists in other celestial bodies", why not between bodies on the surface of the earth
This conjecture is simply a false premise leading to a faulty conclusion.

Quote
the the variation of gravity with altitude has no reported daily or monthly variation.
I am not really sure what you are arguing here.

Quote
Gravity on earth also varies with latitude. This is explained on the Globe by the rotation and differing radii.
Please provide evidence for this claim.

Quote
There are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.
I think we should probably muddle through this first round of cobbled together thoughts before even considering discussing much else.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2016, 09:04:08 AM »
If "gravitation exists in other celestial bodies", why not between bodies on the surface of the earth
This conjecture is simply a false premise leading to a faulty conclusion.
Help me a bit, what "false premise"?
From Wiki "The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."
Gravitation (whether under GR or simply Newtonian) causes a force between masses. "Celestial bodies" have mass, the flat earth has mass and objects on earth have mass, hence there must be "gravitational pull" between the flat earth and objects on it.

Quote from: junker
Quote
the the variation of gravity with altitude has no reported daily or monthly variation.
I am not really sure what you are arguing here.
The Sun, moon and other "Celestial bodies" rotate at rates one revolution in about 24 hours (sun, planets and stars) and about 29 days for the moon.
Hence any "gravitational pull" from these objects should show variations with similar periodicity.

Quote from: junker

Quote
Gravity on earth also varies with latitude. This is explained on the Globe by the rotation and differing radii.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Evidence of what? That "Gravity on earth also varies with latitude." This has been known for around 400 years since Christiaan Huygens found unexplained variations in the rate of pendulum clocks. Temperature variations were important, but were compensated for. Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton determined the variations were due to a variation in "g".

Quote from: junker

Quote
There are numerous related questions, but this will do for a start.
I think we should probably muddle through this first round of cobbled together thoughts before even considering discussing much else.

And, no I have not personally verified all of this!
Mind you I could come up with numerous  points of the Flat Earth model that have not been personally verified, but are simply inferred to preserve the initial hypothesis. 

By the way I find this a bit odd. The Wiki says "The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model". How does that fit with:
What physics makes this distinction and how?
GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.