Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2018, 07:09:41 PM »
i seem to be the one who understands the theory here...
It sure doesn't sound like it.


more rambling (exhibiting a first year uni level of physics), with an ad hominem at the end...
Yeah, you have some work to do. Instead of telling everyone how smart you are, maybe put in a little effort instead of hand waving away the bits you don't understand.


If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
You should probably take a look at the physics books first before offering them to someone else. You might also want to even put in a little time researching before replying again. This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!

very information first post above.  on the second, you are directly quoting me on something that i didnt type and is no where on this thread, thats interesting. third, i dont think anyone other that you and maybe a few other FET folks think i am coming off foolish.   I have used actual GR/SR mathematics as my background.

i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA, and i will accept that you wont be providing anything to the conversation as again you conveniently neglect to address it

Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2018, 07:17:19 PM »
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

I am Seeker of Truth

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2018, 07:20:24 PM »
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?

You said, in another thread, that you have done private experiments to prove the flat earth but you won't share them.

Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2018, 07:25:29 PM »
Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?
My understanding is that he claims to have proven something in this thread. Thus, I'm asking him to clarify.

The thread you're referring to involved your team prying at what I do with my free time. It's rather different.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

I am Seeker of Truth

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2018, 08:21:08 PM »
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?
You fundamentally missed the point. One does not have to accept GR piecemeal to point out that GR itself accepts that the equivalence would be there. To flip it on its head: you are telling us that your gravitational model would be identical to the one we're experiencing. We merely choose to take your word for it.

Sorry, you are missing the points involved here.

Your statements do not change the fact that General Relativity first stated the Equivalence Principle for accelerating frames of reference.

I did not ask you to accept anything. I quoted the UA Wiki entry and ask how it can say that General Relativity does not apply ot a flat earth but then it accepts the Equivalence Principle for accelerating frames of reference as true.

I am Seeker of Truth

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2018, 08:26:20 PM »
i seem to be the one who understands the theory here...
It sure doesn't sound like it.


more rambling (exhibiting a first year uni level of physics), with an ad hominem at the end...
Yeah, you have some work to do. Instead of telling everyone how smart you are, maybe put in a little effort instead of hand waving away the bits you don't understand.


If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
You should probably take a look at the physics books first before offering them to someone else. You might also want to even put in a little time researching before replying again. This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!

What part of physics gooks should he look at?

You are forever telling people to research this and research that and you never tell them what to research nor do you give any links or book names to research.

I'm asking you - point blank, what parts of physics books should he look at and what information,secifically is he looking for?

You imply (state?) that people do not know what they are talking about but instead of information to rebut him, you say 'research it yourself'

Another way to wiggle out of having to actually provide information, in my opinion.

I am Seeker of Truth

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2018, 08:27:21 PM »
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?

How do you prove it is possible?

I am Seeker of Truth

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2018, 08:28:24 PM »
Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?
My understanding is that he claims to have proven something in this thread. Thus, I'm asking him to clarify.

The thread you're referring to involved your team prying at what I do with my free time. It's rather different.

But if you have experimental results which will further the flat earth idea, why not share them with us?

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2018, 09:04:31 PM »
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?
strange is that the following statement was in reply to your previous post, see below:

The gravitation/acceleration model is indeed accurate as to what we feel and how things behave, but GR provides the math that shows why gravity is less at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  This is possible because gravity is based on the mass and distance from the center of mass.  UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  this is observed and a fact that FET is not denying, but in doing so you are saying that there are two accelerations, which would have to imply the top of the mountain is going up slower and there would be contraction in the mountain itself as the ground would be catching up to it.  obviously this isnt happening.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

I am Seeker of Truth

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2018, 02:39:12 AM »
Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?
My understanding is that he claims to have proven something in this thread. Thus, I'm asking him to clarify.

The thread you're referring to involved your team prying at what I do with my free time. It's rather different.

Just more smoke and mirrors. Find anything, no matter how minuscule to fault a poster for and then ignore the actual questions raised. What someone says in one thread has nothing to do with what they say in another thread? Wow, what fraudulent way to do things.

the fact is that you have said that you did experiments and "No, I will not be showing them to you." albeit in another thread - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9814.msg154235#msg154235

Does the material in a given thread stand totally alone? If so, that's a neat trick, but it is also just a way to wiggle out of actually answering questions.

All smoke and mirrors, no reality.

And, as I said in my original reply to you - how can you ask for proof for something when you won't offer any such thing youself???

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2018, 08:12:05 AM »
UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level
But there is a way, and it was already provided to you. As your altitude increases, so does celestial gravitation, which in turn causes you to perceive less of the Earth's acceleration.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2018, 12:58:39 PM »
UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level
But there is a way, and it was already provided to you. As your altitude increases, so does celestial gravitation, which in turn causes you to perceive less of the Earth's acceleration.

this incredibly important aspect of UA, and its two whole lines in the wiki:

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

I love how the description is basically saying its gravity, but not its not gravity.  I mean, this is a pretty significant detail to be left to two lines of text.  Putting aside that you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...it doesnt resolve the issue of differential observed gravity values that i have brought up.

The issue is that UA is based on the earth accelerating upward a 1G.  The acceleration has the same affect of gravity per the equivalence principle.  i agree with this 100%, there would be no difference.  the issue is that we are not talking gravity, if we were, then the negative gravitational (celestial) would indeed act to cancel out some of the gravitation affects and you would observe lower than 1G at higher elevations as you approach the heavenly bodies.

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity, UA is saying the earth is physically accelerating upwards.  You have two accellerations, for giggles lets just use the following math:

sea level; elevation 0 meters; 1G (9.807 m/s2)
Top of mount everest = elevation 4,900 meters = gravity is 9.773 m/s2

that is a difference of 0.034 m/s2  which is the catch-up acceleration that the bottom of the mountain would be 'chasing' the top...

simple kinematics would show that over the course of a year, the top of the mountain would of decreased by 22,338 meters...yeah, kind of an issue.

X = x0 + vot + 0.5at2

of course the gravitational difference would be decreasing as the the top of the mountain lowered and this would eventually equalize so i know the 22,338m is not accurate...but it proves the point that you cant have two different accelerations on earth, as acceleration is related to MOTION....you can have two different gravity (FORCE) values however, and thats very easily defined based on distance from the center of the mass.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.  UA is debunked.



« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 01:01:38 PM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2018, 01:01:35 PM »
you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...
No one is trying to debunk gravity.

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity
We are. We are also discussing gravitation, which counteracts it to some extent.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.
Hold on. You're making this sound as if the acceleration caused by gravitation (in either RET or FET - pick your favourite) is something else than "physical". What is it?

sea level; elevation 0 meters; 1G (9.807 m/s2)
Top of mount everest = elevation 4,900 meters = gravity is 9.773 m/s2

that is a difference of 0.034 m/s2  which is the catch-up acceleration that the bottom of the mountain would be 'chasing' the top...
That's not how any of this works. The entire Earth is accelerating uniformly. However, your weight will be a component of the force of the Earth pushing you up and celestial gravitation. You seem to be under the impression that different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, which is patently not the case.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 01:03:40 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2018, 01:04:23 PM »
you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...
No one is trying to debunk gravity. [/b]

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity
We are. We are also discussing gravitation, which counteracts it to some extent.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.
Hold on. You're making this sound as if the acceleration caused by gravitation (in either RET or FET - pick your favourite) is something else than "physical". What is it?

i wouldnt expect any different reply from you Pete.

yes, UA is debunking gravity, its saying gravity doesnt exist on earth, its just acceleration.  i have shown how that cannot be.

i have already explained in detail why gravity cant 'counteract' this acceleration, its quite simple.

i dont expect you to agree with me and that UA does not work, no point in going on.  i have provided the proof, and its all in my above reply.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 01:07:22 PM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2018, 01:06:15 PM »
That's not how any of this works. The entire Earth is accelerating uniformly. However, your weight will be a component of the force of the Earth pushing you up and celestial gravitation. You seem to be under the impression that different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, which is patently not the case.

interesting being that we observe different G values on earth, and easily calculated. 
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2018, 01:07:43 PM »
yes, UA is debunking gravity, its saying gravity doesnt exist on earth, its just acceleration.  i have shown how that cannot be.
No, that's not what UA is saying.

i have already explained in detail why gravity cant 'counteract' this acceleration, its quite simple.
I mean, so far all you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the two forces involved.

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

interesting being that we observe different G values on earth, and easily calculated. 
Yes, the composite of these two forces will differ in different places on Earth.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2018, 01:33:04 PM »
yes, UA is debunking gravity, its saying gravity doesnt exist on earth, its just acceleration.  i have shown how that cannot be.
No, that's not what UA is saying.

i have already explained in detail why gravity cant 'counteract' this acceleration, its quite simple.
I mean, so far all you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the two forces involved.

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

interesting being that we observe different G values on earth, and easily calculated. 
Yes, the composite of these two forces will differ in different places on Earth.

i cant continue a debate with someone that doesnt exhibit intellectual honesty.  we can disagree on math, theory, etc, but you cannot change the entire premise of the debate, which is UA specifically is a model created to say gravity doesnt exist.  from the wiki on UA:

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.

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"

Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2

Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2018, 01:41:45 PM »
i cant continue a debate with someone that doesnt exhibit intellectual honesty.
I can't force you to talk to me, but I will ask you not to resort to personal insults in the upper fora.

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.

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"

Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2

This does not contradict what I'm saying. You've fixated yourself on an interpretation that you believe to be correct, and are outright refusing clarifications from one of the people who helped write it down.

Gravitation is indeed not the main force keeping us on the ground. Celestial gravitation is indeed somewhat different from the traditional model (it is much weaker). But none of that means that gravitation is altogether absent.

I'm sorry, but you simply misunderstood what was being said. You're welcome to refuse to accept this, but at that point you're just arguing against your own imagination, and no one else.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2018, 02:42:33 PM »

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.


Do you really mean Mass?

Lifting someone up will not alter their mass. The mass of a person on earth or somewhere else with a difference force acting upon them will be the same.
The mass of someone at sea level and then on top of Everest is the same. Their weight is not.

You are referring to weight surely?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2018, 02:55:37 PM »
Do you really mean Mass?
I didn't say mass. I said "measured mass". A scale infers your mass from the force acting upon it - assumed to be weight. The moment you introduce additional forces, the measurement changes. It is, of course, no longer a true mass, since the assumptions are no longer met.

Lifting someone up will not alter their mass. The mass of a person on earth or somewhere else with a difference force acting upon them will be the same.
I'm glad we agree.


You are referring to weight surely?
Not strictly, no. I'm referring to the product of weight, my additional force, and the way in which the scale will process it to output a measurement of mass.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*