Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2018, 01:54:58 PM »
I am correct and your post is completely an hoax. You are already an anti flat earth fascist. You have none of reliablity.

You posted an argument and someone posted a counter argument, instead of addressing the counter argument you resorted to ad hominem attacks and you think that this supports your argument?

I see this thread followed the usual "story arc" on here,
Some wild, baseless FE assertions with no evidence provided
Some explanations from RE
FE claiming there is no evidence for those explanations
RE posting some actual experiments demonstrating the explanations
FE either calling them fake or, in this instance, willfully misunderstanding them.
RE explaining them more clearly.
End of thread. No further rebuttals by FE or any conceding of ground by FE.
Rinse and repeat.

This is another experiment which can be easily repeated, if FE is about empiricism then why not have a go?

Is this not always the case? I am reading forum like this on and off for a while now and this pattern is staggeringly obvious.

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2018, 06:27:08 AM »
Given that the two are entirely separate, I don't see why you would necessarily expect anyone to either accept or reject both. It's like saying that all vegetarians must be left-wingers.

Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity, so this is not at all like all vegetarians being left-wingers (although there does seem to be a pattern there...), but nice try )

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2018, 06:58:19 AM »
I am correct and your post is completely an hoax. You are already an anti flat earth fascist. You have none of reliablity.

I find this fascinating. Why claim to be an engineer and not be familiar with Archimedes Principle, one of the most famous discoveries in physics and something that it's impossible to avoid if you've taken any kind of engineering training?

It's very easy to verify that something weighs less when immersed in a dense medium. It's the reason that we can have ships made out of iron. Or is that a hoax too?

As always, we see a simple experiment shown here, and it's dismissed as being propaganda. Will this experiment be repeated by any FE advocates to demonstrate that it's a fraud? Of course it isn't. If they are eventually forced to accept that the experiment (repeated in many forms over many years) is actually real, then it will suddenly become peripheral.

I note as an aside, as I come off another lengthy ban, that the above post didn't garner as much as a warning.


Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2018, 12:43:54 PM »
The whole universal acceleration idea is a good example of who people come to wrong conclusion if they do not have a real understanding of the expression they using. This idea is based on the equivalence principle, that, in very simple words, says, that you cannot distinguish the effect of a gravitational field from that of a constant acceleration. But this was never supposed to be valid for the gravitational field of a whole planet. It is only valid for homogeneous gravitational field, but the field of a planet is not homogeneous it changes with the distance from the center of the planet. So you can find a certain non-inertial system for each point around the planet, but they're all different from each other depending on their distance from the center. There's no universal non-inertial system that includes the whole planet and everything above it, therefor there is no universal acceleration.       

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2018, 04:24:34 PM »
The whole universal acceleration idea is a good example of who people come to wrong conclusion if they do not have a real understanding of the expression they using. This idea is based on the equivalence principle, that, in very simple words, says, that you cannot distinguish the effect of a gravitational field from that of a constant acceleration. But this was never supposed to be valid for the gravitational field of a whole planet. It is only valid for homogeneous gravitational field, but the field of a planet is not homogeneous it changes with the distance from the center of the planet. So you can find a certain non-inertial system for each point around the planet, but they're all different from each other depending on their distance from the center. There's no universal non-inertial system that includes the whole planet and everything above it, therefor there is no universal acceleration.     

Aside from the evidence which clearly shows that the Earth is not accelerating, imagine the effect of sufficient acceleration to maintain gravity for 6,000 years*. Whether one accepts special relativity, or allows velocities beyond the speed of light (and who knows what any given flat Earther at any given time will believe), the Earth will clearly be moving PDQ. What happens if it hits something? The velocity of the Earth would be such that hitting a speck of dust would cause a massive explosion.

Of course, this won't be an issue because the entire universe is accelerating through... actually, what is it accelerating through? We can never know, because everything is glued to the celestial dome. A completely empty infinite tube, without beginning or end. We must hope, at least, because if it ever hits something, that will be pretty disastrous.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2018, 12:14:35 PM »
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...   

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2018, 02:46:57 PM »
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...

From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2018, 03:08:48 PM »
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...

From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/s
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2018, 03:35:24 PM »
Our perspective is not relevant, as we are inside the accelerated system. The force is acting on the entire system, you have to look at it from the inertia system where everything in embedded inside. And it goes beyond my imagination how this inertia system should look like in which something like our whole visible universe is accelerated at near light speed with a therefore almost infinite force along a straight line...   

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2018, 05:01:36 PM »
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...

From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/s
Just a comparison: if the Earth was propelled by rocket engines, then the least amount of fuel needed to maintain Earth gravity for the 6000 years since God allegedly created it would be around 102700 kilograms. Plus or minus a few dozen orders of magnitude.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2018, 05:12:12 PM »
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...

From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/s
Just a comparison: if the Earth was propelled by rocket engines, then the least amount of fuel needed to maintain Earth gravity for the 6000 years since God allegedly created it would be around 102700 kilograms. Plus or minus a few dozen orders of magnitude.
I think you'll find that 102700 kilograms is exactly 1 metric shit-ton.
I rest my case.

I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood and yet quite happily accept that an INCREDIBLE amount of "dark energy" would have to be accelerating the earth upwards with no explanation as to how that might work and where all that energy is coming from.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2018, 05:17:44 PM »
(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)

Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2018, 05:23:17 PM »
(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)

Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?
I've seen Tom muttering about gravitons which are admittedly theoretical.
I thought there were still some things not well understood about it but this is a bit above my level of understanding of physics tbh.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2018, 05:32:23 PM »
(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)

Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?
I've seen Tom muttering about gravitons which are admittedly theoretical.
I thought there were still some things not well understood about it but this is a bit above my level of understanding of physics tbh.

The only thing we don't understand is how gravity behaves in the realm of quantum mechanics (that's where gravitons, the hypothetical elementary particles that mediate gravity, come from). However, the rest is very well understood (thanks to Sir Newton and Mr. Einstein).

EDIT: some hypotheses uniting gravity and quantum mechanics: string theory, superstring theory, M-theory, Verlinde's entropic gravity, ...
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 05:45:10 PM by Stagiri »
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2018, 07:19:56 PM »

I thought there were still some things not well understood about it but this is a bit above my level of understanding of physics tbh.

Nothing is fully understood in physics. Full understanding is never possible. What we do is produce a model which seems to explain things, and to make predictions. The predictions of the Newtonian model worked very well for a very long time, and are still accurate for most purposes. The Einsteinian model turns out to very slightly better fit observation.

JohnAdams1145

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2018, 05:57:21 AM »
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...

From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.
Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/s
Just a comparison: if the Earth was propelled by rocket engines, then the least amount of fuel needed to maintain Earth gravity for the 6000 years since God allegedly created it would be around 102700 kilograms. Plus or minus a few dozen orders of magnitude.
I think you'll find that 102700 kilograms is exactly 1 metric shit-ton.
I rest my case.

I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood and yet quite happily accept that an INCREDIBLE amount of "dark energy" would have to be accelerating the earth upwards with no explanation as to how that might work and where all that energy is coming from.

The force argument for accelerating the Earth doesn't work because of what FE predicts: the physical effects of UA disappear as you get away from Earth. So essentially what they're posing (in an unnecessarily roundabout way) is that the force that pulls things to the Flat Earth's surface is magically there. Of course, it doesn't help that they refuse to actually make a position on what "gravitation" depends on (and how it's modeled) instead of just stuffing it in there as a correction to make things align with reality; in other words, gravitation just magically makes their model work by applying just the right amount of force everywhere. Sounds like moving the goalposts. And if you think this is unfair treatment of FE, then I challenge you to point me to a single place in this forum/wiki where there is an empirically-verified equation for describing gravitational force. There isn't one. It's just inserted to patch the horribly leaky UA.

Nobody has also posed the question of why the planets and stars are spherical if this so-called Universal Acceleration is shielded by massive objects (as opposed to some contrived special characteristic of Earth). If UA were the result of mass-shielding, we'd expect the planets/stars to be significantly flattened as there would be an asymmetric compressive force on it, much as we see on Earth today.

To clarify why the energy/force arguments do not work, I'll contrive a scenario. You jump into your car and drive in a perfectly straight line. By relativity, your house is moving in the opposite direction in your reference frame. Therefore, your house has a tremendous amount of kinetic energy that seems counterintuitive. Energy is not invariant across reference frames, but it is still conserved within the same frame. Of course, the previous reasoning doesn't exactly parallel this, as it deals with acceleration, which is considered non-relative even in special relativity. Nevertheless, general relativity treats it differently.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 06:00:28 AM by JohnAdams1145 »

Macarios

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2018, 08:00:06 AM »
The force argument for accelerating the Earth doesn't work because of what FE predicts: the physical effects of UA disappear as you get away from Earth. So essentially what they're posing (in an unnecessarily roundabout way) is that the force that pulls things to the Flat Earth's surface is magically there.

As far as I could understand the Flat Earthers, "there is no escape".
There's nothing left or right from Ice Wall, everything that exists is above the ground (land or sea).
At whichever altitude object is, Earth will catch up by own acceleration.
In the case of free fall they just switch reference point to falling object, claiming that Earth actualy accelerates towards objects.

First of all, not all Flat Earthers support UA hypothesis.
Second, the main problem with UA is uniformity.
Earth will either have constant g at any point, or get heavily distorted very quickly in very short time.

And we know very well that g is not only variable with latitude, but with altitude as well.
What Flat Earthers are trying to do is to sweep under the carpet all those differences in g all over the place, and to skip the fact that g depends on distance from the Earth's center.
(And slightly from the local density of the ground.)

I already gave the example of different acceleration of poles and equator.
In only 30 minutes, if initial speed was zero, UA would make poles (North pole and Ice Wall) higher than the Equator for d = at2 / 2, where a = gpole - gequator = 9.832 - 9.78 = 0.052 m/s2.
So, d = 0.052 * 18002 / 2 = 84 240 m.

Does anyone see mountain 84 km high on North pole?

But let me repeat: not all FE-rs support UA.
Smarter ones are aware of two things:
- if Earth accelerates, it has to be "through something" which will allow existence of the Universe
- Universal Accelerator directly contradicts with "static, unmovable, firm" Earth.

Complaining about "mind-blowing 30 km/s around Sun" and "outrageous 230 km/s around galactic core" is counterproductive if your alternative is "lousy 99.99% of light speed (300 000 km/s)".
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 08:06:02 AM by Macarios »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2018, 08:02:01 AM »
Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?

Most every flattie on YouTube, who thinks gravity is "just an unproven theory"
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2018, 08:04:44 AM »
It is not the house, it is the whole earth that is moving relative to you. But in any case the example is not valid, you need the energy to accelerate against the reference system of the earth therefore the two reference frames are not equivalent. As soon as you stop to accelerate (and assuming there are no losses due to friction, and so on) there is no more energy transfer needed. The same if you stop the car.

You can also look at everything from a reference frame outside the earth, also in that case you would see, that only the car is accelerating, not the earth relative to the car.

Anyway, you cannot refer to the equivalence principle and claim because of that you can replace gravity by an acceleration without taking the other consequences of general relativity into account.       

JohnAdams1145

Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2018, 10:56:14 AM »
Macarios, as far as I know, the FE people believe that they have addressed the different perceived accelerations around the Earth.

Their idea, and I may be a little wrong on it, is that UA + "celestial gravitation" (a leaky patch without even the slightest of quantifications) combine to produce the effects of gravity on Earth. So that's what keeps the Earth in one piece. The variations in altitude are caused by a reduction of the "shielding" effect, and the variations in latitude are magically fixed by a specially-designed "celestial gravitation" force.

I believe I heard from Parsifal that the entire universe accelerates along with the Earth (by the invisible dark energy nonsense); otherwise, we'd see micrometeorites smashing into us at relativistic speeds and extreme length contraction amongst the stars and planets. However, the magical "shielding" effect of the Earth (and presumably other large masses) makes people on the surface of the Earth a special case that need to be accelerated via a normal force, making us feel weight.

hexagon,
I'm aware that the particular example involving a house and a car does not completely justify the particular rebuttal I made; it just provides some intuition for it. Energy is not invariant across reference frames, and therefore any energy arguments made against UA in the particular invocation that I describe it in are flawed. Instead of imagining the car accelerating, you can just imagine that it started out at a certain speed. Clearly, the kinetic energies are different in different reference frames, both of which may be inertial (and therefore not preferred).


Effectively, I can describe "gravitation" as a magical force that exists only on the surfaces and interiors of planets. In the case of Earth, it's a magical force normal to the surface that conforms exactly to reality. My model posits that it will read on a scale exactly what it predicts. While my model seems like a piece of garbage pulled from the machinations of my mind, you should note that it is just as valid as the UA explanation because:
1. It makes assumptions of about the same strength. (UA assumes celestial gravitation, I assume a gravitation that just works)
2. It makes exactly the same predictions in all cases. (UA says celestial gravitation fixes the variations in gravity; I say my gravitational force is completely correct in the first place).

And, so, you can't really falsify UA unless you actually disprove the assumptions (show that the Earth is not flat). Of course, if FE were willing to come up with equations/laws governing the application of celestial gravitation, then my model would be assuming far more, and we could indeed falsify UA by checking measurements of the celestial gravitation.

Of course, we can simply reject UA on the grounds that the assumptions make it effectively unfalsifiable and useless in terms of predictive power, and recognize that the idea that "gravity is complicated so it can't exist" is inherently hypocritical.