gravity
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:52:44 PM »
As stated in the FAQ, the force know as gravity doesnt exist, rather what we feel as gravity is the force of the earth accelerating at a rate of 32ft/s/s. If this is the case, how is it that we do not feel an increased force of gravity every second because of the earth's acceleration?

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2016, 07:26:52 PM »
You would be accelerating at the same rate.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2016, 07:30:51 PM »
Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature.  It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: gravity
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2016, 08:46:15 PM »
thanks for the answers, I was confused about this

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2016, 11:30:35 PM »
Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature.  It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.
Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.

The article at this website http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf
is really a very telling article on the Equivalence Principle and should be read before anyone criticises too severely what I put here.

In its simplest from the FET uses the Equivalence Principle to replace the gravitational field observed on the earth's surface.  I contend that this is not a valid application of the Equivalence Principle.

Quote
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
— Einstein, 1907
This very brief statement of Einstein needs a little qualification.  If the reference system under consideration is not small enough for the gravitational field to be considered constant over its range then there can be no complete physical equivalence.

This is stressed in the fuller presentation of the Equivalence Principle.
Quote from: Importance of the Equivalence Principle
An equivalent formulation of the Principle of Equivalence is that at any local (that is, sufficiently small) region in spacetime it is possible to formulate the equations governing physical laws such that the effect of gravitation can be neglected. This in turn means that the Special Theory of Relativity is valid for that particular situation, and this in turn allows a number of things to be deduced because the solution of the equations for the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond the scope of our course, but is not particularly difficult for those trained in the required mathematics.  from http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html
In the case of the earth we can readily measure variations in the gravitational field.  The most obvious is due to altitude and latitude, but there are more subtle variations due to the presence of ore bodies as used in gravimetric surveys for minerals.

As a result this, the concept of Universal Acceleration can replace a gravitational field only if the reference system (the whole earth) is sufficiently small for the gravitational field to be considered constant over the whole system.

This is clearly not satisfied, so the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the gravitational field.
 and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "gravitational field".

I know that TFES attributes these variations to the "gravitational effects of the celestial bodies", as in:
Quote from: The Wiki, Tidal Effects
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
but this cannot be the cause because these bodies are in constant motion above the earth, yet the variations in  the observed "gravitational field" because these variations are essentially stationary - being due to altitude, latitude and the proximity of massive ore bodies, etc.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2016, 12:06:02 AM »
This is clearly not satisfied, so the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the gravitational field.
 and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "gravitational field".

You say this, but are unable to provide any actual proof of the claim beyond just those words. Nothing in your post proves counter to FET. Better luck next time.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2016, 02:38:24 AM »
This is clearly not satisfied, so the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the gravitational field.
 and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "gravitational field".

You say this, but are unable to provide any actual proof of the claim beyond just those words. Nothing in your post proves counter to FET. Better luck next time.
So, what are you challenging?
  • The variations in "g" over the earth's surface have been known for centuries.
  • The observed variations are well correlated with altitude and latitude.
  • I have yet seen no-one claiming the Einstein's EP is valid for a region with variations in "g".
  • Continually moving celestial objects are not a reasonable explanation for the (almost[1]) static variations in "g" observed.
It seems that Flat Earth supporters simply see the earth as flat. Then every other observation is bent to fit this initial premise without independent evidence.

No, I don't need any luck.

In Rowbotham's day the idea of gravity did not fit with his flat earth, so he denies gravity[2] and proposes UA. Now we find problems with that and those holes get papered over without any evidence that these explanations actually explain the variations found.

[1] I say "almost" because even on the globe earth the sun and moon cause extremely slight variations - about 0.52×10−7 g and 1.1×10−7 g resp!

[2] Rowbotham denies Newton's gravity, even though Cavendish had independently verified the effect. Since then hundreds of others have performed similar experiments (I have the results of some 61 of these) and well justified Cavendish's result. Rowbotham and other FE proponents attempt to discredit bt ridicule any contrary evidence.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 08:19:41 AM by rabinoz »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2016, 02:54:07 AM »
Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature.  It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.
Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.

Irrelevant.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2016, 08:30:03 AM »
Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature.  It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.
Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
Irrelevant.
You say it's irrelevant, but if the gravitational field across the earth is not constant then, with or without the EP, UA cannot ne used to replace gravity, unless you have justifiable reasons for those deviations. Just remember that I was describing only the most obvious "g" variations - there are many more to consider.

Yes, a few facts are quite irrelevant to the Flat Earth! You see the earth looks flat, then change everything else to suit!
Things like: perspective, massive refraction, impossible magnification in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
Then declare any photos and other evidence that goes against the  Flat Earth as fake or lies!

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2016, 06:45:20 PM »
Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature.  It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.
Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
Irrelevant.
You say it's irrelevant, but if the gravitational field across the earth is not constant then, with or without the EP, UA cannot ne used to replace gravity, unless you have justifiable reasons for those deviations. Just remember that I was describing only the most obvious "g" variations - there are many more to consider.

Yes, a few facts are quite irrelevant to the Flat Earth! You see the earth looks flat, then change everything else to suit!
Things like: perspective, massive refraction, impossible magnification in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
Then declare any photos and other evidence that goes against the  Flat Earth as fake or lies!

It was irrelevant to the OP's question, which had nothing at all to do with variations in g over the surface of the Earth.  I wasn't defending Flat Earth Theory with my response, I was merely answering his question.  If you have something irrelevant to that question that you think is worthy of debate you should probably take it to the proper board.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: gravity
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2016, 07:41:18 PM »
Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature.  It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.
Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
Irrelevant.
You say it's irrelevant, but if the gravitational field across the earth is not constant then, with or without the EP, UA cannot ne used to replace gravity, unless you have justifiable reasons for those deviations. Just remember that I was describing only the most obvious "g" variations - there are many more to consider.

Yes, a few facts are quite irrelevant to the Flat Earth! You see the earth looks flat, then change everything else to suit!
Things like: perspective, massive refraction, impossible magnification in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
Then declare any photos and other evidence that goes against the  Flat Earth as fake or lies!

It was irrelevant to the OP's question, which had nothing at all to do with variations in g over the surface of the Earth.  I wasn't defending Flat Earth Theory with my response, I was merely answering his question.  If you have something irrelevant to that question that you think is worthy of debate you should probably take it to the proper board.

While It was irrelevant to my original question, he was not discussing it at that time, rather discussing something with Junker. From what I can gather (from experience) some FEers seem to lead someone off topic, and come in saying that it is irrelevant to the original question, which is something Junker does a lot with me, instead of answering the questions asked.

Re: gravity
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2016, 07:45:46 PM »
I've been looking into buoyancy a little bit... and it seems odd that most people accept that in liquid something with less density will be "pushed" to the top... but can't seem to accept that things behave in a similar manner if submerged in a gas (our atmosphere)
Why Gravity ever was postulated seems extraneous to describe the phenomenon we feel as a solid in liquids and gases

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2016, 05:28:09 AM »
I've been looking into buoyancy a little bit... and it seems odd that most people accept that in liquid something with less density will be "pushed" to the top... but can't seem to accept that things behave in a similar manner if submerged in a gas (our atmosphere)
Why Gravity ever was postulated seems extraneous to describe the phenomenon we feel as a solid in liquids and gases
This does not explain the greatly varying weights of objects of exactly the same size.

This a bit from my previous quote with a line added:
Another example.  Suppose we have 4 identical cube shaped blocks of 10 cm each side made of 4 different metals.  The following table gives the mass of air for that volume and the masses (and weights) in kilograms:
Material   
Mass of 0.001 m3  Weight when in air
Air   
0.0012 kg     --   
Magnesium   
1.80 kg   1.799 kg
Steel   
7.85 kg   7.849 kg
Lead   
11.37 kg  11.369 kg
Gold   
19.36 kg  19.359 kg
Then of course we find that the weight of any of these blocks actually increases if they are weighed in a chamber with very low air pressure.  Yes, we find that increase is 1.2 g! 
No, it's no co-incidence - just old Archimedes popping up again!

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2016, 04:03:36 PM »

old Archimedes popping up again!

The same Archimedes who miscalculated the RET circumference of the earth by thousands of miles? Is that who you are really using to defend your stance?

Re: gravity
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2016, 01:46:58 PM »

old Archimedes popping up again!

The same Archimedes who miscalculated the RET circumference of the earth by thousands of miles? Is that who you are really using to defend your stance?

I don't think that you realize how old and primitive the equipment they were using to measure it was, and how they using the sun and some math to calculate it, not to mention they surprising amount of variables they had to deal with. For a calculation in Archimedes' time, it was very accurate.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2016, 07:48:06 PM »

old Archimedes popping up again!

The same Archimedes who miscalculated the RET circumference of the earth by thousands of miles? Is that who you are really using to defend your stance?

He was 1% or 15% off depending on which standard of the stadion is used.  Even 15% off for the technology he had available still means he did a pretty good job.


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10027
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: gravity
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2016, 09:18:15 PM »
Isn't it amazing how low people's standards get when they're asked to evaluate someone they like?

"No, honey, of course you're not fat."
"No, Archimedes, of course your estimations weren't wildly inaccurate."
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: gravity
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2016, 08:31:28 PM »
Again, I dont think that you understand how old and inaccurate their equipment was. Archimedes was born in 287 BC and died in 212 BC, over 2000 years ago! The equipment he had on hand compared to the equipment we have today would be like trying to zoom in on the moon with a magnifying glass, rather than using the Hubble space telescope to do it. The fact that we praise him for getting such an accurate estimate for his time does not mean that we praise him because we like him, but because we see how intelligent he was by being able to calculate the earths circumference with such accuracy.

Re: gravity
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2016, 08:45:59 PM »
Again, I dont think that you understand how old and inaccurate their equipment was. Archimedes was born in 287 BC and died in 212 BC, over 2000 years ago! The equipment he had on hand compared to the equipment we have today would be like trying to zoom in on the moon with a magnifying glass, rather than using the Hubble space telescope to do it. The fact that we praise him for getting such an accurate estimate for his time does not mean that we praise him because we like him, but because we see how intelligent he was by being able to calculate the earths circumference with such accuracy.

What equipment do we have today to measure the Earth's Circumference?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2016, 09:03:04 PM »

Again, I dont think that you understand how old and inaccurate their equipment was. Archimedes was born in 287 BC and died in 212 BC, over 2000 years ago! The equipment he had on hand compared to the equipment we have today would be like trying to zoom in on the moon with a magnifying glass, rather than using the Hubble space telescope to do it. The fact that we praise him for getting such an accurate estimate for his time does not mean that we praise him because we like him, but because we see how intelligent he was by being able to calculate the earths circumference with such accuracy.

But Eratosthenes was born a decade after Archimedes and managed to get it "right." Apparently they made incredible improvements in that generation, but none in the following 2000 years...