A question for the REers.

  • 190 Replies
  • 36731 Views
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
A question for the REers.
« on: August 13, 2008, 02:20:00 AM »
I wanted to know, and there's no RE FAQ (how impolite of you) and I searched. Also, I want a laugh. How does gravity work again? Until you can answer, see Engy's sig.








No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2008, 02:29:02 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

That helps I hope.

I don't know how good you are with simple high schoold physics, but this shows that 2 bodies attract eachother with a force that is relative to it's mass.

?

Ursa

  • 51
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2008, 02:43:06 AM »
Here's some simple gravity proof experiments you can do with household stuff, no they're not just dropping things.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

I especially like The Archimedes Apparatus.

Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2008, 03:10:59 AM »
The curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter present. As a direct result of the interaction of mass with its environment, the geometry of spacetime curvature determins the geodesics of particles, light beams and produces the acceleration of gravity.

Don't argue against GR. FE FAQ cites it itself.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2008, 06:31:16 AM »
I'm not arguing with GR, that's gravitation. I'm arguing with the mass-magic-gravity method of Newton. As to the Wikipedia article, it calls Newton's law a description, whereas I want an explanation. I want to know about this mystical graviton, and the method by which it brings objects of mass together.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2008, 06:36:20 AM »
General Relativiy equations are reduced to Newtons laws for objects not travelling at the speed of light. Thus, to question Newton is to question GR.

Quote
I want to know about this mystical graviton, and the method by which it brings objects of mass together.

I, and the rest of the world's physicists, certainly do too.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2008, 06:42:40 AM »
Firstly, could you show this? I've never encountered it. Second, you can't answer this and you expect us to know everything?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2008, 08:04:18 AM »
Quote
and there's no RE FAQ (how impolite of you) and I searched.

Is this the round earth society?

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2008, 08:07:02 AM »
Is there one?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45102
  • +87/-127
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2008, 08:11:12 AM »
Firstly, could you show this? I've never encountered it. Second, you can't answer this and you expect us to know everything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problems_with_Newton.27s_theory
Quote
In situations where either dimensionless parameter is large, then general relativity must be used to describe the system. General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the limit of small potential and low velocities, so Newton's law of gravitation is often said to be the low-gravity limit of general relativity.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2008, 08:15:32 AM »
So in RE there are three separate types of physics? And FE is stupid?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45102
  • +87/-127
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2008, 08:26:56 AM »
So in RE there are three separate types of physics? And FE is stupid?

Actually, RET has lots of types of physics.

    Classical mechanics
    Electromagnetism
    Relativity
    Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
    Quantum mechanics
    Condensed matter
    Atomic, molecular, and optical
    High energy/particle physics
    Astrophysics

Just to name a few.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2008, 08:31:12 AM »
I meant relativistic physics (large scale), Newtonian physics (small scale), and theoretical physics (subatomic scale) because all have different theories on everything.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2008, 08:33:26 AM »
Actually, RET has lots of types of physics.

    Classical mechanics
    Electromagnetism
    Relativity
    Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
    Quantum mechanics
    Condensed matter
    Atomic, molecular, and optical
    High energy/particle physics
    Astrophysics

Just to name a few.

I'm just wondering markjo if you could tell us which bits of RET clash which each other, and how. For example, I know that theories based on relativity and classical mechanics have issues, as do quantum mechanics and the previous two. Do other theories within RET clash in similar ways?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2008, 08:44:15 AM »
I meant relativistic physics (large scale), Newtonian physics (small scale), and theoretical physics (subatomic scale) because all have different theories on everything.

I see you have no idea about the RE.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

lolz at trollz

  • 501
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2008, 08:48:17 AM »
lol


If RE theories were said to be 99% accurate and consistant, then FET would be 0.0001% accurate and 0% consistent. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45102
  • +87/-127
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2008, 08:49:24 AM »
I'm just wondering markjo if you could tell us which bits of RET clash which each other, and how. For example, I know that theories based on relativity and classical mechanics have issues, as do quantum mechanics and the previous two. Do other theories within RET clash in similar ways?

The QM, relativity and classical mechanics are tools, nothing more.  Different tools are specialized for different tasks.  Trying to use QM to describe the interactions of galaxies is like trying to use a microscope to study the rings of Saturn, it's the wrong tool for the job.  I see no reason why different (and sometimes conflicting) theories can't be used in an attempt to accurately describe different aspects of the universe that we live in, as long a the appropriate theory is used properly.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2008, 08:51:03 AM »
So you have three separate models.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2008, 08:53:06 AM »
I'm just wondering markjo if you could tell us which bits of RET clash which each other, and how. For example, I know that theories based on relativity and classical mechanics have issues, as do quantum mechanics and the previous two. Do other theories within RET clash in similar ways?

The QM, relativity and classical mechanics are tools, nothing more.  Different tools are specialized for different tasks.  Trying to use QM to describe the interactions of galaxies is like trying to use a microscope to study the rings of Saturn, it's the wrong tool for the job.  I see no reason why different (and sometimes conflicting) theories can't be used in an attempt to accurately describe different aspects of the universe that we live in, as long a the appropriate theory is used properly.

Don't worry, markjo, I agree. It's just a pity all RE'er don't apply the same thinking when considering FET...
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2008, 08:53:35 AM »
So you have three separate models.

I can apply relativistic effects to my car but why would I? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45102
  • +87/-127
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2008, 08:55:26 AM »
I meant relativistic physics (large scale), Newtonian physics (small scale), and theoretical physics (subatomic scale) because all have different theories on everything.

Believe it or not, the rules are different at different scales.  Would you expect an oxygen atom to follow the same rules as our solar system?  This is why we have different theories to describe actions at different scales.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2008, 09:02:13 AM »
In the absence of the Theory of Everything ('ToE') which so many theorists are scratching their heads about, we have to make do with having theories that provide accurate predictions within their own relevant limits.  This does not mean that until we can perfectly predict everything from one single law (which may actually be impossible for all we know) then physics is pointless - you can still use QM and solid state theories to build ridiculously fast microprocessors without worrying about the gravitational attraction between neighbouring transistors. Like markjo said, it's all about the right tool for the right job.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

oldsoldier

  • 183
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2008, 09:11:00 AM »
Maybe there's 3 different scales in RE, but most physicists will only admit to 2. And besides, I think you're describing the scales wrong.

First the 2 scales...
there's "normal" to large and massive. General Relativity supercedes  Newtonian gravitation so one could compute planetary orbits in GR if one wanted (and indeed for Mercury, one must use GR) but newtonian works well enough, so all of this is one scale.

Then there's the subatomic scale, where QM effects dominate.

These 2 scales overlap when one considers massive small bodies. This is why black holes are of such interest. We need both GR and QM to explain how it works fully and... we don't have a consistent theory there. At least one diff I detect in FE vs RE on this type of point is that RE freely admits the existence of this shortcoming.

Some may argue that there's a 3rd scale, let's call it galactic scale, where "dark matter" would dominate. Those who would call this a 3rd scale are most probably believers in some type of MOND theory (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) to add an extra term that comes in at these scales that has too small an effect at solar system scales. However, most physicists today do not believe in MOND.

Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2008, 04:30:38 PM »
Firstly, could you show this? I've never encountered it.

I have to restrain myself for not swearing. You will encounter the Lorentz transformations in any general relativity book. You don't even need to study General Relativity, look in the first chapters of any Special Relativity book. Or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.

So you have three separate models.

No. They describe the same world on different scales. The other RE'ers in here have explained this to you all too well.

?

Oscar Wilde

  • 3781
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2008, 05:09:31 PM »
The QM, relativity and classical mechanics are tools, nothing more.  Different tools are specialized for different tasks.  Trying to use QM to describe the interactions of galaxies is like trying to use a microscope to study the rings of Saturn, it's the wrong tool for the job.  I see no reason why different (and sometimes conflicting) theories can't be used in an attempt to accurately describe different aspects of the universe that we live in, as long a the appropriate theory is used properly.
This reminds me of the official Vatican explanation for the Holy Trinity... ::)

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2008, 02:24:37 AM »
It seems strange to use three different physics models based purely on size, because that's what they are. I refer you all to my original, and as yet unanswered question, how does gravity work? How can all things with mass exert energy without taking any in? Then someone decided it was an invisible, silent, otherwise completely undetectable particle, this phantom graviton. How does that work? You can't talk about question dodging, at least not until you answer this.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

?

Ursa

  • 51
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2008, 02:45:36 AM »
sorry, i posted this earlier mate, i guess it got lost in all the rubbish replies. some simple repeatable experiments in relation to gravity, as for 'how' it works, i'm afraid that's almost in the realm of the untestable, as with most quantum phenomenon, observing the forces at play could alter them. i think the general relativity explanation is the most elegant however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity

Here's some simple gravity proof experiments you can do with household stuff, no they're not just dropping things.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

I especially like The Archimedes Apparatus.

?

Fletch

  • 276
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2008, 02:59:11 AM »
How does gravity work again?
Is this why you believe in FE? Because an upward accelerating earth makes more sense then an unexplained gravity?
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

?

Ursa

  • 51
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2008, 03:06:09 AM »
How does gravity work again?
Is this why you believe in FE? Because an upward accelerating earth makes more sense then an unexplained gravity?

despite the fact accelerating at 1G would have us moving at the speed of light inside a year - impossible - or the alternative, we're accelerating at less than 1G, in which case all matter on earth's face would we getting lighter.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: A question for the REers.
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2008, 03:08:48 AM »
How does gravity work again?
Is this why you believe in FE? Because an upward accelerating earth makes more sense then an unexplained gravity?

despite the fact accelerating at 1G would have us moving at the speed of light inside a year - impossible - or the alternative, we're accelerating at less than 1G, in which case all matter on earth's face would we getting lighter.

Look, I can tell you, do some searching before you start trying to tackle the UA. The maths involved are consistent with relativity. The assertion you have made has been made countless times by countless posters, and I can assure you, it is based on a lack of understanding as regards relativity.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord