Magma beeing "squeezed"?

  • 71 Replies
  • 9993 Views
?

Earthquakesdontbend

  • 89
  • Earthquakes don't bend.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2008, 11:15:38 PM »
Well I don't think the bottom is necessarily composed of the same material as the top, in fact I think it's unlikely; the surface of the earth is somewhat brittle and I would expect the bottom to be stronger out of necessity.  But that's academic to the question, I suppose.
Yes, how strong would the bottom have to be to support all the mass of the top part while the whole thing is accelerating at 9.8m/s upwards. It would have to be incredibly strong. In fact, no known material could be that strong.

There's nothing implausible about that.

Quote
But the thing is the bottom has to be made of some material that interacts with normal matter, and so this interaction itself will be the source of "Earthquakes", which means we can detect it. And if we can detect it, careful analysis will reveal some of its properties (like how solid it is, its density, whether it is elastic or not, and so forth).

In RE the center of the earth is solid too, right?  Do we detect earthquakes from the liquid magma interacting with the solid core?
Yes, we do.

Well, we must be detecting something then, if the earth is flat.  So there's the answer.  That was easy.

No...

We can detect something called the "electromagnetic field" in case you have heard of it. That is caused by the core rotating and causing (I think) friction in the outer core. Oh wait... How do you explain the electromagnetic field caused by friction in the core with the cylinder model?

But you are forgetting something. Earthquakes shaking the boundary between the outer core and the inner core would probably have different properties than earthquakes shaking the bottom of the cylinder (in case they went straight upwards and did not cross the solid core). They would have to travel through the solid core.
I was thinking of putting up the "top ten shapes of the earth". I've got Pyramid Earth and Cubic Earth so far...

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2008, 03:54:48 AM »
Well I don't think the bottom is necessarily composed of the same material as the top, in fact I think it's unlikely; the surface of the earth is somewhat brittle and I would expect the bottom to be stronger out of necessity.  But that's academic to the question, I suppose.
Yes, how strong would the bottom have to be to support all the mass of the top part while the whole thing is accelerating at 9.8m/s upwards. It would have to be incredibly strong. In fact, no known material could be that strong.

There's nothing implausible about that.
Except that the material has no precedent...

Using this unknown material is an Ad Hoc explanation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Ad_hoc_hypothesis ). So for us to accept that this material exists you have to give some evidence other than it is necessary for Flat Earth Theory to work.

Well, we must be detecting something then, if the earth is flat.  So there's the answer.  That was easy.
The problem is that what we are detecting is not compatible with a flat Earth. For one, there is the timing.

As the Flat Earth is well... Flat... then the distance between the top surface and the bottom is not all that far, as say compared to the circumference of the Flat Earth.

As we know the speed that Earthquakes travel through the ground (that is how they pin point the epicentre of the Earth quake and how deep it was), then we can use this to determine the location of these underground movements. The problem is that they are far deeper than can be accounted for by a Flat Earth, the Depth is far deeper than the height of the cylinder claimed by FEers (in the thousands of kilometres).

Not only this, but the timing of the Earthquake on various places on the surface eliminate the possibility that these occur on a Flat Earth.

On a Flat Earth, a point directly above where the Earth quake occurs (the epicentre - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicentre ) is closer than any other point on the surface to the Hyopcenter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocenter ). So this means that this will be the first place that an earthquake is felt.

However, actual measurements of Earthquakes show that the timing of the Earthquake reaching the surface occurs in a ring around the epicentre at the same time as the earthquake reaches the epicentre. This can only occur is the Earth is Round and can not occur on a Flat Earth.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2008, 10:50:02 AM »
Well I don't think the bottom is necessarily composed of the same material as the top, in fact I think it's unlikely; the surface of the earth is somewhat brittle and I would expect the bottom to be stronger out of necessity.  But that's academic to the question, I suppose.
Yes, how strong would the bottom have to be to support all the mass of the top part while the whole thing is accelerating at 9.8m/s upwards. It would have to be incredibly strong. In fact, no known material could be that strong.

There's nothing implausible about that.

Quote
But the thing is the bottom has to be made of some material that interacts with normal matter, and so this interaction itself will be the source of "Earthquakes", which means we can detect it. And if we can detect it, careful analysis will reveal some of its properties (like how solid it is, its density, whether it is elastic or not, and so forth).

In RE the center of the earth is solid too, right?  Do we detect earthquakes from the liquid magma interacting with the solid core?
Yes, we do.

Well, we must be detecting something then, if the earth is flat.  So there's the answer.  That was easy.

No...

We can detect something called the "electromagnetic field" in case you have heard of it. That is caused by the core rotating and causing (I think) friction in the outer core. Oh wait... How do you explain the electromagnetic field caused by friction in the core with the cylinder model?

The core is rotating.  Whew, that was pretty easy too.

Quote
But you are forgetting something. Earthquakes shaking the boundary between the outer core and the inner core would probably have different properties than earthquakes shaking the bottom of the cylinder (in case they went straight upwards and did not cross the solid core). They would have to travel through the solid core.

I see no reason why.  The two proposals seem perfectly analogous to me.

Well I don't think the bottom is necessarily composed of the same material as the top, in fact I think it's unlikely; the surface of the earth is somewhat brittle and I would expect the bottom to be stronger out of necessity.  But that's academic to the question, I suppose.
Yes, how strong would the bottom have to be to support all the mass of the top part while the whole thing is accelerating at 9.8m/s upwards. It would have to be incredibly strong. In fact, no known material could be that strong.

There's nothing implausible about that.
Except that the material has no precedent...

How many such materials were discovered just in the past two centuries?  What "precedent" did uranium have before it was discovered in 1789?

Quote
Using this unknown material is an Ad Hoc explanation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Ad_hoc_hypothesis ). So for us to accept that this material exists you have to give some evidence other than it is necessary for Flat Earth Theory to work.

Until we observe the base we cannot know what it is composed of.

Quote
Well, we must be detecting something then, if the earth is flat.  So there's the answer.  That was easy.
The problem is that what we are detecting is not compatible with a flat Earth. For one, there is the timing.

As the Flat Earth is well... Flat... then the distance between the top surface and the bottom is not all that far, as say compared to the circumference of the Flat Earth.

As we know the speed that Earthquakes travel through the ground (that is how they pin point the epicentre of the Earth quake and how deep it was), then we can use this to determine the location of these underground movements. The problem is that they are far deeper than can be accounted for by a Flat Earth, the Depth is far deeper than the height of the cylinder claimed by FEers (in the thousands of kilometres).

Please post a link to this definitive, offical FE estimate of the depth of the earth.  I have yet to see one.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2008, 01:05:32 PM »
Quote
The core is rotating.  Whew, that was pretty easy too.

Why would the core be rotating? The FE disc is stationary, as far as I'm aware. If there was any rotation, I would imagine it would be rapidly slowed to a standstill by the friction of the layers above.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2008, 01:15:54 PM »
Quote
The core is rotating.  Whew, that was pretty easy too.

Why would the core be rotating? The FE disc is stationary, as far as I'm aware. If there was any rotation, I would imagine it would be rapidly slowed to a standstill by the friction of the layers above.

My theory, of course, is that it's a fundamental force causing the core to rotate.  The disk itself is stationary; we have no evidence that the disk itself is rotating but we do have evidence that the core is rotating.  I think there's a strong likelihood that it's a manifestation of the Coriolis Force, but like with much scientific enquiry the explanation might actually be something that just hasn't been thought of yet.  It's an interesting question to be sure that might keep more motivated FEers occupied for years to come.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Earthquakesdontbend

  • 89
  • Earthquakes don't bend.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2008, 01:58:03 PM »
Quote
Quote
But you are forgetting something. Earthquakes shaking the boundary between the outer core and the inner core would probably have different properties than earthquakes shaking the bottom of the cylinder (in case they went straight upwards and did not cross the solid core). They would have to travel through the solid core.

I see no reason why.  The two proposals seem perfectly analogous to me.


In scenario A, the waves do NOT pass through the solid core. In scenario B, they do.
I was thinking of putting up the "top ten shapes of the earth". I've got Pyramid Earth and Cubic Earth so far...

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2008, 02:09:48 PM »
Quote
Quote
But you are forgetting something. Earthquakes shaking the boundary between the outer core and the inner core would probably have different properties than earthquakes shaking the bottom of the cylinder (in case they went straight upwards and did not cross the solid core). They would have to travel through the solid core.

I see no reason why.  The two proposals seem perfectly analogous to me.


In scenario A, the waves do NOT pass through the solid core. In scenario B, they do.

I thought we were talking about waves originating at the solid core. ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2008, 05:18:36 PM »
Quote
How many such materials were discovered just in the past two centuries?  What "precedent" did uranium have before it was discovered in 1789?
Yes, back then we didn't have the atomic theory of chemistry. However, a guy named Dmitri Mendeleev developed the "Periodic Table" in 1869. What he did is recognised that there was a regular (but complex) pattern that all known (at the time) elements fit into. Not only that, but there were several "hole" in the table and even made predictions about new elements based on these holes (one of which was Helium). Since then, all the elements that Dmitri Mendeleev predicted has been found and the properties of them match closely to what he said they would be.

But science didn't just stop there. Although Dmitri Mendeleev's Periodic Table was useful and allowed us to predict the properties of unknown elements, it didn't explain why they were like that. As atomic theory progressed and we started to understand the structure of the atom, the reasons for Dmitri Mendeleev's Periodic Table worked were uncovered. Using this New Theory, they reconstructed the Periodic Table and included a host more elements into it (what we now know as the Periodic Table).

Also, according to the New Periodic Table, there is a going to be some elements at around elements 110 to 114 (Uranium is only 92) that are relatively stable. Not only does the new theory give us new elements that have never been discovered to exist naturally, it also gives us information on the properties (melting and boiling points, crystal structure and density, possible molecules it can form, half-life, etc, etc, etc).

What no aspect of this theory states is that any of these yet to be discovered elements can form structures that could have the structural integrity to hold together an accelerating (9.8m/s2) Earth.

Part of this comes from the way that matter interacts with one another through the electromagnetic force. The reason that solids hold their shape is that the atoms are bound together by electrical attractions. In a solid, then electrons from one atom are bound together with the electrons from nearby atoms. This creates an attraction which holds the lot together. Knowing how many electrons are shared like this gives us the amount of force that is holding the material together.

Also, the reason that one object does not pass through another object is because of the reverse of this effect, that is the electrons repel each other in the different objects and it prevents the object from passing through. If the amount of force due to pushing the objects together exceeds the binding force of the atoms in one of the objects, then that object breaks. The atoms are pushed apart far enough so that they can't easily recombine, this "crack" then provides a mechanical advantage whereby the forces are concentrated at teh point of the crack and this pushes more atoms apart and so forth until the gap is big enough for the pushing object to pass trough. Or as can be the case, the forces binding the object together can be putting strain on the bonds between its atoms and when a crack starts to form these pressures can concentrate at the point of the crack causing it to expand on its own (this occurs in glass).

So, this hypothetical material that needs to be at the bottom of a Flat Earth must have a binding force that would be strong enough to hold up the entire weight of the Earth (as a single point of failure would concentrate the entire force of the Earth and we would all fall out the bottom of the disk as it crumbled to pieces).

In other words it would need to be a material that could be used to hold up the entire weight of the Earth (imagine suspending the entire mass of the Earth from a piece of string of this material). The attraction would be so strong that it would overcome the Pauli Exclusion force and cause the material to be compressed into a black hole!  :o. (Well technically it would be a singularity. As a black hole is caused by gravity, this would be caused by electromagnetic forces compressing the material into an infinitely dense point).

The reason we can know that it has to be an electromagnetic force is base it must interact with normal matter or it would not be able to support the normal matter of the surface (we would just slide through it).
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2008, 06:08:22 PM »
Quote
What no aspect of this theory states is that any of these yet to be discovered elements can form structures that could have the structural integrity to hold together an accelerating (9.8m/s2) Earth.

Oh, of course the Periodic Table of Elements is the definitive last word on chemistry and its very existence and the conclusions drawn from it rule out the possibility of any new elements with unforeseen properties being discovered.  I'm glad modern science is so complete.  I guess there's no reason for further research in chemistry since everything has already been figured out.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Earthquakesdontbend

  • 89
  • Earthquakes don't bend.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2008, 12:41:28 AM »


As you can see, magma will gather up at the bottom and cause "downlift". The magma that sinks down to the crust will not be able to get back to the core, since it cannot be re-heated, so the bottom will get heavier and heavier. Magma rising to the topwill be cooled, sink back and be re-heated again. Magma at the bottom cannot be reheated, and it will continue to fill the bottom. It will cause uplift and rifting - and thus cause earthquakes.

Also, P-waves get refracted. A P-wave from the bottom is likely to have quite different properties from those at the boundary between the core and outer core.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2008, 02:25:35 AM by Earthquakesdontbend »
I was thinking of putting up the "top ten shapes of the earth". I've got Pyramid Earth and Cubic Earth so far...

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2008, 12:52:03 PM »
Also, P-waves get refracted. A P-wave from the bottom is likely to have quite different properties from those at the boundary between the core and outer core.

I put in italics the word that indicates that you're just guessing here; you seem pretty sure there would be a difference, but at an obvious loss to describe exactly what that difference should be, leading me to think that your explanation here is a crock of shit borne out of frustration at not being able to logically refute the FE model.  I also think you're being awful assumptive about the behavior of magma in a FE.  I admit once again that I'm no expert in this field, but perhaps you could explain exactly what the difference is between your diagram and the behavior of magma in the real world, and in the RE model.  If your diagram does not match real world observations it is by nature inaccurate.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2008, 12:57:00 PM by Doc Brownbottom »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Earthquakesdontbend

  • 89
  • Earthquakes don't bend.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2008, 01:12:38 PM »
What I am trying to tell you is that earthquakes that would occur at the bottom of your FE cylinder would leave traces of earthquakes. We would likely be able to separate them from earthquakes on our side. This is because earthquakes on our side originating from our side would probably be stronger (not having travelled as far as from the other side), and earthquakes originating on the crust of our side would leave traces like, well, earthquakes.
I was thinking of putting up the "top ten shapes of the earth". I've got Pyramid Earth and Cubic Earth so far...

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2008, 05:52:46 PM »
What I am trying to tell you is that earthquakes that would occur at the bottom of your FE cylinder would leave traces of earthquakes. We would likely be able to separate them from earthquakes on our side. This is because earthquakes on our side originating from our side would probably be stronger (not having travelled as far as from the other side), and earthquakes originating on the crust of our side would leave traces like, well, earthquakes.
Actually we would be able to distinguish Earthquakes from the bottom of the Cylinder as compared to the top by measuring the timing of when the 'quake reached different detectors. This timing, so long as we have at least 4 detectors detect the quake, we can plot sphere over time and where they meet will be where the 'quake occurred in 3 dimensions. This will give us the Depth of the quake along with the location directly above where the 'quake occurred.

This location is called the Hypocentre and is the point at which the Earthquake occurred (the Epicentre of an Earthquake is the point on the surface of the Earth directly above the point where the Earthquake occurred).

So I will state categorically that we can determine if an Earthquake occurred on the bottom of the cylinder or not.

Quote
What no aspect of this theory states is that any of these yet to be discovered elements can form structures that could have the structural integrity to hold together an accelerating (9.8m/s2) Earth.

Oh, of course the Periodic Table of Elements is the definitive last word on chemistry and its very existence and the conclusions drawn from it rule out the possibility of any new elements with unforeseen properties being discovered.  I'm glad modern science is so complete.  I guess there's no reason for further research in chemistry since everything has already been figured out.
LOL  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Seriously. Do you really believe that about what I said or are you really trolling?  ???

What you have just done is called a Strawman Argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

First to show you why what you did was a strawman argument:
I NEVER said that the periodic table was the DEFINITIVE last word on chemistry. Quite the opposite actually. I said that the Periodic table was the RESULT of atomic theory.

What you are trying to say is that if I were to use Excel to work out my budget, then that Excel table causes my income to be what it is. This is just plain ridiculous and if you can't come up with a better counter argument, then you might as well not even post.

Now, here it is a gain:
The Periodic table was an attempt to list the properties of known materials and to see if there was any regularity to the properties of these materials.

Later when atomic theory was developed they discovered the REASONS why the table did have these regular properties (the properties occurred according to set periods, which is why it was called the periodic table).

These reasons have been tested time and time again and never has a single one of these tests ever shown that the theory behind chemistry is being violated, moreover not a single particle of matter have ever been shown to exist that violates this theory.

Now, I acknowledge that Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence, but part of the theory that unpins chemistry (and the periodic table) means that if any such exotic material were to exist that interacts with matter, then it would be at least subject ot the same forces that matter interacts with itself (the electromagnetic forces specifically).

As we know the strengths of the electromagnetic force, we can determine the maximum forces that any material can hold and any material that could support the mass of the Earth as it accelerated at 9.8m/s/s would have to be so strong that unless the material was so dense (the denser a material is the closer the atoms are together and thus the stronger it is) would mean that the Pauli exclusion principal (which has been tested) would be violated. In other words the very material that would be need would violate the laws of physics that it relied its existence on. A big problem indeed.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2008, 09:19:06 PM »
I'm not saying that there aren't earthquakes at the bottom of the cylinder.  Quite the opposite; I said that their effects have been observed.  All I'm saying is that however the material at the bottom of the cylinder interacts with the matter above it, clearly nature rights itself, because the earth still exists.  Exactly how is unknown, but I suspect it might have something to do with the dark energy underneath the disk propelling it upwards.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2008, 09:43:49 PM »
I'm not saying that there aren't earthquakes at the bottom of the cylinder.  Quite the opposite; I said that their effects have been observed.  All I'm saying is that however the material at the bottom of the cylinder interacts with the matter above it, clearly nature rights itself, because the earth still exists.  Exactly how is unknown, but I suspect it might have something to do with the dark energy underneath the disk propelling it upwards.
There are a lot of "Unknowns" and "Supposes" in that post.

RE does not have these uncertainties in how the whole thing operates, so clearly RET is a much more complete explanation for this (this doesn't mean that RET is right, just that it is more complete).

First of all you are basing your conclusions on the assumptions that Dark Energy exists, that we are being accelerated upwards an that the Earth is Flat.

There is no direct evidence of these (as far as has been presented) and their existence relies on those self same assumptions being correct. In logic this kind of argument is called Circular Reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_cause_and_consequence .

You have to establish the truth of you assumptions first.

For RET these have been done (although alternative explanation do exist for the evidence in isolation, it is just that when you use an alternative explanation for one piece of evidence it contradicts another piece of evidence - so RET is the only theory that does not contradict all available evidence).

Again, this does not mean that RET is right, it just means that it explains all available evidence and does not contradict (or is not contradicted by) any of that evidence.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2008, 01:10:46 PM »
First of all you are basing your conclusions on the assumptions that Dark Energy exists, that we are being accelerated upwards an that the Earth is Flat.

There are no assumptions here.  We know the earth is flat because of Rowbotham's experiments.  We know we are being accelerated upwards because we can measure the effect.  And we know something must be propelling us upwards; we don't know what that is because we've never directly observed it, so we give it the placeholder name dark energy (the exact same thing can be said about dark energy in the RE model; just substitute "increasing the rate of expansion of the universe" for "propelling us upwards").  See, no circular reasoning here.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 01:14:36 PM by Doc Brownbottom »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2008, 02:24:25 PM »
We know the earth is flat because of Rowbotham's experiments.
Rowbotham's experiments have been discredited many times on these boards.

We know we are being accelerated upwards because we can measure the effect.
By the equivalence principle, you can't tell if it's acceleration or gravity.

See, no circular reasoning here.
Unless, of course, you were simply being sarcastic, in which case you have things just about spot on.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2008, 02:51:36 PM »
Rowbotham's experiments have been discredited many times on these boards.

I disagree.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2008, 09:34:10 PM »
First of all you are basing your conclusions on the assumptions that Dark Energy exists, that we are being accelerated upwards an that the Earth is Flat.

There are no assumptions here.  We know the earth is flat because of Rowbotham's experiments.  We know we are being accelerated upwards because we can measure the effect.  And we know something must be propelling us upwards; we don't know what that is because we've never directly observed it, so we give it the placeholder name dark energy (the exact same thing can be said about dark energy in the RE model; just substitute "increasing the rate of expansion of the universe" for "propelling us upwards").  See, no circular reasoning here.
The problem with Robotham's experiments is that they have not been able to reproduce the results he got. One of the cornerstones of science is that any experiment has to be reproducible. Even the Zetitic Method requires reproducibility of results.

So if an experiment gives one set of results, but then nobody else can reproduce them, then the conclusion is that the original experiment was in error.

As Robotham's experiments have not been reproduced (and this has even been admitted by you because of your need to invoke bendy light to explain the very same phenomena that his experiments claimed to disprove), we must conclude that his experimental results were in error.

The very fact that you require Bendy light for your model of a Flat Earth means you have evidence that disproves Robotham's experiments, as his experiments were supposed to prove that the Earth was Flat because there was no observed curvature. If there is no observed curvature, bendy light is not needed. But as you require bendy light, then this must mean that you observe curvature (in light or ground, but there is observed curvature) and this is in DIRECT opposition to Robotham's conclusions.

Therefore You, yourself, have disproved him by acknowledging that there must be some cause of an apparent curvature. Either he is wrong, or you are wrong, you can't be both right...

As for an acceleration upwards, you have offered this as a counter argument against Gravity by saying that they is indistinguishable, that Gravity and an acceleration upwards give the same effect.

Actually there is a difference. It has to do with Frames of Reference

With a constant acceleration being the cause of "Gravity", it is indistinguishable from the Force: "Gravity" so long as you are in the same reference frame as that being accelerated (that is you are being accelerated along with it).

But, once you enter a different reference frame, then differences can emerge. One of which is that under the "Force" of Gravity the further you are from the centre of mass of the gravitating object the weaker the force is upon you.

Using very sensitive measures, this has been confirmed: You weigh more at sea level than you do atop a high mountain. It is only a fraction of a gram, but it is measurable with a sensitive enough set of scales.

This effect does not occur under a constant acceleration cause of gravity. No matter how far you are from the "engine" (or whatever is causing the acceleration, be that dark energy, a rocket motor, or what have you) you will always feel the same force. So if the Earth was being accelerated, then you will weigh the same at sea level as you do atop a high mountain.

As a difference in weight between sea level and a high mountain have been measured, then the Gravity that we feel can not be caused by an acceleration.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #49 on: November 24, 2008, 09:58:19 PM »
First of all you are basing your conclusions on the assumptions that Dark Energy exists, that we are being accelerated upwards an that the Earth is Flat.

There are no assumptions here.  We know the earth is flat because of Rowbotham's experiments.  We know we are being accelerated upwards because we can measure the effect.  And we know something must be propelling us upwards; we don't know what that is because we've never directly observed it, so we give it the placeholder name dark energy (the exact same thing can be said about dark energy in the RE model; just substitute "increasing the rate of expansion of the universe" for "propelling us upwards").  See, no circular reasoning here.
The problem with Robotham's experiments is that they have not been able to reproduce the results he got. One of the cornerstones of science is that any experiment has to be reproducible. Even the Zetitic Method requires reproducibility of results.

Rowbotham's experiments have been reproduced.

Quote
The very fact that you require Bendy light for your model of a Flat Earth means you have evidence that disproves Robotham's experiments, as his experiments were supposed to prove that the Earth was Flat because there was no observed curvature. If there is no observed curvature, bendy light is not needed. But as you require bendy light, then this must mean that you observe curvature (in light or ground, but there is observed curvature) and this is in DIRECT opposition to Robotham's conclusions.

I don't believe in bendy light.

Quote
As a difference in weight between sea level and a high mountain have been measured, then the Gravity that we feel can not be caused by an acceleration.

The stars exert a slight gravitational pull.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2008, 11:11:20 PM »
With a constant acceleration being the cause of "Gravity", it is indistinguishable from the Force: "Gravity" so long as you are in the same reference frame as that being accelerated (that is you are being accelerated along with it).

Incorrect.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #51 on: November 24, 2008, 11:44:42 PM »
Rowbotham's experiments have been reproduced.

Evidence?  Link?

Here are some links to recreations of his experiments...

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=605.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=579.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=575.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=649.0

So far all of the recreations have not shown the results that Rowbotham reported.  Where are the links to the ones that show the same results?


Quote
I don't believe in bendy light.

Well then, can you explain why in pictures we can't bring back the Sun at sunrise using magnification or the bottom of objects at sea?  According to Rowbotham, this is all due to perspective.  If that is true, then magnification would bring back all parts of an object equally.  In pictures, we can see objects that are smaller than the object "beneath the horizon" (wouldn't want to offend the FEers), but still no restoration.

Here are some pictures showing that effect...


Naked Eye


Magnified


Publicity Photo of the Platform

Here is an object that we are trying to restore that has contrasting colors to the surface of the sea, so should be very visible.  We can make out the cranes, derrick and flare boom, but no legs.  Why not?


Quote
The stars exert a slight gravitational pull.

But yet don't exert a pull on themselves or other celestial objects?

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #52 on: November 25, 2008, 12:41:24 AM »
The stars exert a slight gravitational pull.

"Gravitation, is the apparent attraction between objects" from the FAQ.

If two objects are being attracted together, that means one or both of the objects have a non-zero acceleration if they are at a non-zero distance from each other. i.e. something is happening to one of the objects to make it move towards / be attracted to the second.  At rest, you will need a non-zero opposite acceleration to separate the two objects.  (Like a magnet with a piece of iron -- you hold the magnet near the iron, the iron movies towards the magnet.  If it's "hovering" like a maglev train, then the magnet is simply accelerating the iron at 9.8m/s^2 to counteract "Gravity")

Now, if I got that right...

Are you saying that an object at the top of a mountain is accelerating at a rate higher than something at sea level?  In FE theory, the RE concept of "gravity" is the 9.8m/s^2 upward acceleration by the Earth.  Keep in mind that in FE, there is nothing pulling you back down to Earth EXCEPT for this 9.8m/s^2. 

RE's have "Gravity", which gets weaker the further you are from the center of gravity -- hence the weight difference.


FE'ers don't have that luxury.  Any star generating gravitation that causes something to be lighter on the surface of the planet means that the object on the surface MUST be accelerating upwards higher than 9.8m/s^2 (even if it's by 0.0001m/s^2). 

This means that longstanding volcanoes would have their tops ripped off the face of the planet over the centuries, or the stars would eventually collide with the planet.  The pull, despite being so "weak" -- would add up in distance over time.  Even the object had a difference of 1 cm / year, in 1,000 years, you'd either have floating rock about the height of about 10m in 1,000 years, or the stars be 10km closer in 1,000,000 years (which is a lot, considering the FE Sun is suppose to be within 1000 miles and the Earth is suppose to be billions of years old).  There should be a progression of stars being close to the planet as well as newer stars further away, since newer stars take the place of the older, closer stars.

I suspect the force difference required to make you lighter will have an acceleration higher than 1cm/year, but I'm using that as an example.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 01:02:59 AM by ProofIsInThePudding »

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #53 on: November 25, 2008, 02:44:38 AM »
With a constant acceleration being the cause of "Gravity", it is indistinguishable from the Force: "Gravity" so long as you are in the same reference frame as that being accelerated (that is you are being accelerated along with it).

Incorrect.
It is quite correct.

I gave one example, that the higher you go the weaker the gravity. According to Relativity, being further away from a gravitating body is a different reference frame (because the curvature of space-time is different).

Also, with a gravitating body, it is possible to achieve Escape Velocity, where as with an accelerating body you can't. This will lead to variations in expected velocities between an object that is accelerating and one that it gravitating if you enter a high ballistic trajectory (like near escape velocity), as a ballistic trajectory is a constant velocity in the case of the accelerating Earth, then it is in a different reference frame (constant velocity vs acceleration).

If you examine all the examples whereby they say that you can't determine the differences between accelerating and gravity, in all of them they assume that the observer is in the same reference frame as the object undergoing acceleration (and so they too are in an accelerating reference frame).

If you are in a non accelerating, non gravitational reference frame, then you can see a difference between someone else in a gravitational or an accelerating reference frame.

The thing is, all observers in the same accelerating reference frame experience the same force no matter how far away they are form the source of that acceleration, where as in an gravitational field, there is a drop off of force the further away you go according to the inverse square law (double the distance and you have 1/4 the force). Under acceleration, the force of "Gravity" that you feel has no such drop off and does not obey the inverse square law.

These allow you to determine if you are in an accelerating reference frame or a gravitational reference frame.

So there really is a fundamental difference between an accelerating and gravitational cause of gravity. And if there is a difference, you can determine if you are in one or the other by looking for those differences.

These have been done and the determination is that we are in a gravitational field, and not undergoing acceleration.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #54 on: November 25, 2008, 02:52:41 AM »
It is quite correct.

I gave one example, that the higher you go the weaker the gravity. According to Relativity, being further away from a gravitating body is a different reference frame (because the curvature of space-time is different).

Also, with a gravitating body, it is possible to achieve Escape Velocity, where as with an accelerating body you can't. This will lead to variations in expected velocities between an object that is accelerating and one that it gravitating if you enter a high ballistic trajectory (like near escape velocity), as a ballistic trajectory is a constant velocity in the case of the accelerating Earth, then it is in a different reference frame (constant velocity vs acceleration).

If you examine all the examples whereby they say that you can't determine the differences between accelerating and gravity, in all of them they assume that the observer is in the same reference frame as the object undergoing acceleration (and so they too are in an accelerating reference frame).

If you are in a non accelerating, non gravitational reference frame, then you can see a difference between someone else in a gravitational or an accelerating reference frame.

The thing is, all observers in the same accelerating reference frame experience the same force no matter how far away they are form the source of that acceleration, where as in an gravitational field, there is a drop off of force the further away you go according to the inverse square law (double the distance and you have 1/4 the force). Under acceleration, the force of "Gravity" that you feel has no such drop off and does not obey the inverse square law.

These allow you to determine if you are in an accelerating reference frame or a gravitational reference frame.

So there really is a fundamental difference between an accelerating and gravitational cause of gravity. And if there is a difference, you can determine if you are in one or the other by looking for those differences.

These have been done and the determination is that we are in a gravitational field, and not undergoing acceleration.

Uh, no. Gravitation is not a force, and neither is acceleration.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #55 on: November 25, 2008, 02:59:48 AM »
It is quite correct.

I gave one example, that the higher you go the weaker the gravity. According to Relativity, being further away from a gravitating body is a different reference frame (because the curvature of space-time is different).

Also, with a gravitating body, it is possible to achieve Escape Velocity, where as with an accelerating body you can't. This will lead to variations in expected velocities between an object that is accelerating and one that it gravitating if you enter a high ballistic trajectory (like near escape velocity), as a ballistic trajectory is a constant velocity in the case of the accelerating Earth, then it is in a different reference frame (constant velocity vs acceleration).

If you examine all the examples whereby they say that you can't determine the differences between accelerating and gravity, in all of them they assume that the observer is in the same reference frame as the object undergoing acceleration (and so they too are in an accelerating reference frame).

If you are in a non accelerating, non gravitational reference frame, then you can see a difference between someone else in a gravitational or an accelerating reference frame.

The thing is, all observers in the same accelerating reference frame experience the same force no matter how far away they are form the source of that acceleration, where as in an gravitational field, there is a drop off of force the further away you go according to the inverse square law (double the distance and you have 1/4 the force). Under acceleration, the force of "Gravity" that you feel has no such drop off and does not obey the inverse square law.

These allow you to determine if you are in an accelerating reference frame or a gravitational reference frame.

So there really is a fundamental difference between an accelerating and gravitational cause of gravity. And if there is a difference, you can determine if you are in one or the other by looking for those differences.

These have been done and the determination is that we are in a gravitational field, and not undergoing acceleration.

Uh, no. Gravitation is not a force, and neither is acceleration.
Ok, if you really need to be pedantic: The force resulting form acceleration, or from Gravitation.

But that is sidestepping the issue: There really is a difference between Gravity and Acceleration.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #56 on: November 25, 2008, 03:03:47 AM »
Ok, if you really need to be pedantic: The force resulting form acceleration, or from Gravitation.

But that is sidestepping the issue: There really is a difference between Gravity and Acceleration.

Acceleration results from a force, not the other way around. And there is no force resulting from gravitation, unless you are talking about tidal forces, which are not really forces but a consequence of warped spacetime.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Earthquakesdontbend

  • 89
  • Earthquakes don't bend.
Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2008, 03:51:58 AM »
Back to the original topic, please.

How do you explain that we have yet to detect one, single earthquake from the other side of the cylinder? How come that the hot material in the inner core is magically rotating in the FE model?

And how come that the entire cylinder is actually whole? The sides would have melted away long ago assuming that they are made of ordinary matter.

Oh... I forgot... They're made of dark matter...  :o
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 04:33:57 AM by Earthquakesdontbend »
I was thinking of putting up the "top ten shapes of the earth". I've got Pyramid Earth and Cubic Earth so far...

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2008, 05:36:11 AM »
With a constant acceleration being the cause of "Gravity", it is indistinguishable from the Force: "Gravity" so long as you are in the same reference frame as that being accelerated (that is you are being accelerated along with it).

Incorrect.

Don't start this again. It's just a way to divert the argument away from how much you're losing.
Take it to the gravity sticky.

Re: Magma beeing "squeezed"?
« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2008, 07:25:10 AM »

How do you explain that we have yet to detect one, single earthquake from the other side of the cylinder? How come that the hot material in the inner core is magically rotating in the FE model?

Oh, it's much more real and makes more sense than the magical force of gravity in the RE "theory."
/sarcasm