Oceans in RET

Yes. It is. The moon produces a much larger force than any local difference in 'g'.

Please don't compare incompatible units. Force is measured in newtons, acceleration is measured in metres per second per second. One cannot be larger than the other because they are two different quantities. When you make a valid comparison, I will be able to respond to your post.

I can't understand the two parts where you say:

!)Now, this table indicates that the measured value of g in Singapore is just 9.781 m s-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s-2. This is a difference of nearly 0.4%. Were the oceans truly bound to the surface of the Earth gravitationally, those nearer the Equator should be seeking out the lower energy states that exist in the polar regions and accumulating there.

2)Why is this not the case? The answer, of course, is simple. The Earth is flat, and these oceans are not impressed to move because the acceleration keeping them in place is the same everywhere.

 You present the table where you show that g is different in different places and you emphasize that if it is so the oceans would flood everything. But the next thing you say is that it doesn't happen because g is same in all places. How can it be different everywhere and in same time same everywhere? Or do you speak about different things in first case(g) and in second case(something else) as you usually do.

The acceleration of the Earth is the same everywhere in FET, otherwise the Earth would fall apart. The variance in g is caused by the stars overhead, which are constantly rotating much faster than the oceans can gravitate towards them - unlike in RET, where the oceans are stationary relative to the Earth.

Quote

Please define what you mean by "uphill".

A place you have to gain gravitational potential energy to reach.

You have more gravitational potential energy at the Equator than near the poles (in RET, at least). Thank you for proving my point.

The Earth is spinning, which creates centrifugal 'force' on the Oceans.

How is this relevant to the post you quoted?

It means that the oceans aren't necessarily stationary in relation to the Earth.

The oceans are rotating with the Earth. Unless you'd care to provide evidence of a global high speed ocean current running either east or west?

You have more gravitational potential energy at the Equator than near the poles (in RET, at least). Thank you for proving my point.

How so?

Quote

You have more gravitational potential energy at the Equator than near the poles (in RET, at least). Thank you for proving my point.

How so?

Because you are further from the Earth's centre of mass.

I'm just thinking about this, but in RE, there is less pull nearer the equator. Given the Earth's rotation is a factor, what would that mean for the oceans?
I'm not really sure..

All it means is that there is a weaker attraction near the Equator than near the poles, and that the oceans would therefore accumulate towards the poles. You are thinking of a centrifuge, in which there is no significant gravitational attraction, and as such the strongest centripetal force is furthest from the centre, where the substance inside the centrifuge meets with a physical barrier. They are two very different concepts.

Because you are further from the Earth's centre of mass.

There's more to gravitational potential energy than the distance you are from the source of attraction.

Even if we're talking only about one source?

Yes, I imagine so.

imo it's quite easy:

the tendency is that we have a lower g when approaching the equator (fictitious forces at work etc)

g_equ<g_pol (1)

the potential energy is the same at every point of the water suface:

E_equ=E_pol

E=mgh (good enough for this problem)

g_equh_equ= g_polh_pol

(1)=> h_equ>h_pol

matches shape of the earth as predicted by re

Why is the potential energy the same if the two locations are different distances from the centre of mass?

i assumed that g varies according to the wiki link robo posted on page 1 and that water flows till it reaches a state of equilibrium (if i'm not mistaken that's what robo assumed in the opener)

in general the potential energy of two positions is only comparable by their height (or whatever characterises the potential) if the potential itself is uniform. not the case here cause we have a varying g.

The acceleration of the Earth is the same everywhere in FET, otherwise the Earth would fall apart. The variance in g is caused by the stars overhead, which are constantly rotating much faster than the oceans can gravitate towards them - unlike in RET, where the oceans are stationary relative to the Earth.

You are making things more complicated. g now consists of two parts. Constant 9.8 acceleration minus or plus "stars overhead". If yo claim that then you must have a way to show that there is really such a thing as "stars overhead" and some experiment to measure it. Otherwise it doesn't make sense because in topic http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28330.0 you argue that the g which FE measures is measured and calculated exactly as in RE. But it can't be because RE variant doesn't include the "stars overhead" in formula.

 And you know, water doesn't move anywhere if it is on hole even if there is another hole beside it with greater g.

What? If you completely redraft that into something comprehensible, it may be a valid (but weak, if your others are anything to go by) point. Right now it's just nonsense and a link.

What? If you completely redraft that into something comprehensible, it may be a valid (but weak, if your others are anything to go by) point. Right now it's just nonsense and a link.

I am glad that you agree with me that Robosteve theory is nonsense.

Has anyone cited the second law of thermodynamics as a cause for ocean movement yet?

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 19, 2009, 09:55:24 AM

What? If you completely redraft that into something comprehensible, it may be a valid (but weak, if your others are anything to go by) point. Right now it's just nonsense and a link.

I am glad that you agree with me that Robosteve theory is nonsense.

No, his theory is fine, your response is bull, that's why I quoted it.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 10:07:52 AM

I am glad that you agree with me that Robosteve theory is nonsense.

No, his theory is fine, your response is bull, that's why I quoted it.

My response was about one thing which ensue from of Robosteve theory, therefore you said that Robosteve theory was nonsense. And his theory isn't fine. It's based on assumptions and isn't proved at lab.

Just because the measurements weren't made in a lab at these cities doesn't make the g any different. Stop posting.

E=mgh (good enough for this problem)

I beg to differ. Let's try that one again.

U_equ = -Gm_earthm_object/R_equ
U_equ = -6.2504 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

U_pol = -Gm_earthm_object/R_pol
U_pol = -6.2713 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

That's a good 200 kJ more gravitational potential energy per kilogram of mass at the Equator than at the poles, or 200 MJ extra potential energy per cubic metre of water.

Just because the measurements weren't made in a lab at these cities doesn't make the g any different. Stop posting.

Sorry, it was inside joke for me. Shortly, Robosteve insist that because we haven't made sustained nuclear fusion in labs the stars can't run on sustained nuclear fusion. I hinted with my lab reference that because we don't have a model of round earth at lab we can't say that on round earth the oceans behave the way Robosteve assumed.

Shortly, Robosteve insist that because we haven't made sustained nuclear fusion in labs the stars can't run on sustained nuclear fusion.

I have said no such thing.

I hinted with my lab reference that because we don't have a model of round earth at lab we can't say that on round earth the oceans behave the way Robosteve assumed.

Our theories of fluid dynamics have been repeatedly shown to be accurate. Unless RE can come up with a whole new set of theories describing why the oceans behave the way they do, you're going to have to accept that there is no explanation for the oceans being as they are if the Earth is round.

I congratulate you on an epic troll Robosteve.

Now, this table indicates that the measured value of g in Singapore is just 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2. This is a difference of nearly 0.4%. Were the oceans truly bound to the surface of the Earth gravitationally, those nearer the Equator should be seeking out the lower energy states that exist in the polar regions and accumulating there. Coastal cities such as Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded, while there would be much more dry land in Oceania and Central America.

Why is this not the case? The answer, of course, is simple. The Earth is flat, and these oceans are not impressed to move because the acceleration keeping them in place is the same everywhere.

Your theory is flawed from the beginning. I don't know what angle to take at first... but. You start with assumption that we are on flat earth. You take piece of land, without gravity and spinning, put water on it and accelerate it upward and say that water is distributed equally because g is same everywhere. Then you take round earth which is round, has gravity and rotates around it's axis and spins around sun and has whatever miscellaneous forces more. And you say that it must behave exactly like flat earth. How come?
 Second, you say that despite of earth being flat or round you measure g in same way and you get same results in FE and RE. And if we get value of g in Singapore 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2 we have two different g's in both model and the Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded in FE model also. It doesn't matter if the difference is because of "stars overhead"(as you said) it matters that it is different and you itself argue that because of this difference Helsinki must be flooded.
 Third. Your invariance in g because of "stars overhead" bothers me. How can you claim that on FE the acceleration is same everywhere and not be able to measure it same? And how is that you can't measure this "stars overhead"? You only measure the g and get different results and that means that g is different in different places. To claim otherwise you must be able to measure the other part which makes g different. Or yo must have a way to measure g same everywhere eliminating the "stars overhead" part. So, how do you measure these things?

Your theory is flawed from the beginning. I don't know what angle to take at first... but. You start with assumption that we are on flat earth. You take piece of land, without gravity and spinning, put water on it and accelerate it upward and say that water is distributed equally because g is same everywhere. Then you take round earth which is round, has gravity and rotates around it's axis and spins around sun and has whatever miscellaneous forces more. And you say that it must behave exactly like flat earth. How come?

I never did anything of the sort. I said that the observed positions of the oceans are compatible with FET but not RET.

Second, you say that despite of earth being flat or round you measure g in same way and you get same results in FE and RE. And if we get value of g in Singapore 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2 we have two different g's in both model and the Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded in FE model also. It doesn't matter if the difference is because of "stars overhead"(as you said) it matters that it is different and you itself argue that because of this difference Helsinki must be flooded.

Incorrect. The stars are rotating overhead faster than the oceans can gravitate towards them. The only place where they would have a significant effect on the oceans is where their linear velocity is small; that is, in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The fact remains that the acceleration keeping the oceans in place is the same everywhere, which causes the ocean surface to be flat on a large scale.

Third. Your invariance in g because of "stars overhead" bothers me. How can you claim that on FE the acceleration is same everywhere and not be able to measure it same? And how is that you can't measure this "stars overhead"? You only measure the g and get different results and that means that g is different in different places. To claim otherwise you must be able to measure the other part which makes g different. Or yo must have a way to measure g same everywhere eliminating the "stars overhead" part. So, how do you measure these things?

You can't measure them separately. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:09:30 PM

Shortly, Robosteve insist that because we haven't made sustained nuclear fusion in labs the stars can't run on sustained nuclear fusion.

I have said no such thing.

Yes, you have. You have argued repeatedly that because nuclear fusion has never been shown to work it isn't believable that stars can use this. Your quotes for example:
billions of stars which are powered by a mechanism that has never been proven to be practical
Which(nuclear fusion) is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

Quote from: Robosteve on April 19, 2009, 11:12:30 PM

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:09:30 PM

Shortly, Robosteve insist that because we haven't made sustained nuclear fusion in labs the stars can't run on sustained nuclear fusion.

I have said no such thing.

Yes, you have. You have argued repeatedly that because nuclear fusion has never been shown to work it isn't believable that stars can use this. Your quotes for example:
billions of stars which are powered by a mechanism that has never been proven to be practical
Which(nuclear fusion) is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

All I said that it was not proven to work. I didn't say that it therefore can't work.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:43:32 PM

Yes, you have. You have argued repeatedly that because nuclear fusion has never been shown to work it isn't believable that stars can use this. Your quotes for example:
billions of stars which are powered by a mechanism that has never been proven to be practical
Which(nuclear fusion) is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

All I said that it was not proven to work. I didn't say that it therefore can't work.

You argue the point how stars work with it so it is the same as it can't work. Or lets get it cleared.
Others say that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.
You argue that we have yet to show that nuclear fusion can be sustainable energy source for long run.

 What does that mean? What does our inability to produce nuclear fusion show about stars? Do you agree that to show the stars ability to use nuclear fusion we must produce the star here, at earth? But that is impossible. I quite don't understand why you stay in some kind of limbo with your argument. You don't say that it is possible and you don't say that it is possible but still you argue the side of FE with it. If you are in limbo you can't choose sides.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:33:53 PM

Your theory is flawed from the beginning. I don't know what angle to take at first... but. You start with assumption that we are on flat earth. You take piece of land, without gravity and spinning, put water on it and accelerate it upward and say that water is distributed equally because g is same everywhere. Then you take round earth which is round, has gravity and rotates around it's axis and spins around sun and has whatever miscellaneous forces more. And you say that it must behave exactly like flat earth. How come?

I never did anything of the sort. I said that the observed positions of the oceans are compatible with FET but not RET.

Observed positions in what model? FET of course. But where is observed positions for RET model? You didn't bring any. You say that in FET oceans are flat and in same level everywhere. But you can't bring this theory over to RET model because RET model is completely different.
Therefore you can't argue the oceans positions in RET in same bases as oceans positions in FET. You must make the model of reound earth with all its rotating and spinning and gravity and other forces and then you can go and observe how the oceans behave there.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:33:53 PM

Second, you say that despite of earth being flat or round you measure g in same way and you get same results in FE and RE. And if we get value of g in Singapore 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2 we have two different g's in both model and the Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded in FE model also. It doesn't matter if the difference is because of "stars overhead"(as you said) it matters that it is different and you itself argue that because of this difference Helsinki must be flooded.

Incorrect. The stars are rotating overhead faster than the oceans can gravitate towards them. The only place where they would have a significant effect on the oceans is where their linear velocity is small; that is, in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The fact remains that the acceleration keeping the oceans in place is the same everywhere, which causes the ocean surface to be flat on a large scale.

The only thing I see which you argue is that because of the difference in g Helsinki must be flooded. And g is different in both models whatever the reason. If you argue that water must flow from places with lower g to places with higher g then they must do so also in flat earth or you must bring in some observable/measurable reason why they aren't. Right now there is two different g's in FET but no reason why water doesn't flow from one place to another.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:33:53 PM

Third. Your invariance in g because of "stars overhead" bothers me. How can you claim that on FE the acceleration is same everywhere and not be able to measure it same? And how is that you can't measure this "stars overhead"? You only measure the g and get different results and that means that g is different in different places. To claim otherwise you must be able to measure the other part which makes g different. Or yo must have a way to measure g same everywhere eliminating the "stars overhead" part. So, how do you measure these things?

You can't measure them separately. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle.

Forgive me my stupidity but I can't read out from there that you can't measure them separately. And if you go up then there must be some height where the pull of stars is stronger than the acceleration part and you can surely measure it.

You argue the point how stars work with it so it is the same as it can't work. Or lets get it cleared.
Others say that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.
You argue that we have yet to show that nuclear fusion can be sustainable energy source for long run.

What does that mean? What does our inability to produce nuclear fusion show about stars? Do you agree that to show the stars ability to use nuclear fusion we must produce the star here, at earth? But that is impossible. I quite don't understand why you stay in some kind of limbo with your argument. You don't say that it is possible and you don't say that it is possible but still you argue the side of FE with it. If you are in limbo you can't choose sides.

It means that REers criticise FET for not having a proven mechanism by which the Sun can produce energy, yet RET is no better. That's all I was pointing out.

Observed positions in what model? FET of course. But where is observed positions for RET model? You didn't bring any. You say that in FET oceans are flat and in same level everywhere. But you can't bring this theory over to RET model because RET model is completely different.
Therefore you can't argue the oceans positions in RET in same bases as oceans positions in FET. You must make the model of reound earth with all its rotating and spinning and gravity and other forces and then you can go and observe how the oceans behave there.

Are you suggesting that Singapore and Helsinki are not both coastal cities in RET? Because I'm pretty sure the ocean is observed to be right beside both of them in both theories.

The only thing I see which you argue is that because of the difference in g Helsinki must be flooded. And g is different in both models whatever the reason. If you argue that water must flow from places with lower g to places with higher g then they must do so also in flat earth or you must bring in some observable/measurable reason why they aren't. Right now there is two different g's in FET but no reason why water doesn't flow from one place to another.

The reason why they aren't is because the source of gravitation is constantly moving (the stars), unlike in RET where it is stationary relative to the water (the Earth). If that doesn't convince you, see my argument based on gravitational potential energy:

U_equ = -Gm_earthm_object/R_equ
U_equ = -6.2504 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

U_pol = -Gm_earthm_object/R_pol
U_pol = -6.2713 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

That's a good 200 kJ more gravitational potential energy per kilogram of mass at the Equator than at the poles, or 200 MJ extra potential energy per cubic metre of water.

The water should be flowing to where it has least potential energy - that is, the polar regions - if the Earth is round. Naturally, the lack of significant variations in gravitational potential energy on the surface of the Earth in FET means that there should be no such effect if the Earth is flat, which is what is observed.

Forgive me my stupidity but I can't read out from there that you can't measure them separately. And if you go up then there must be some height where the pull of stars is stronger than the acceleration part and you can surely measure it.

It states that gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable; therefore the gravitation of the stars and the acceleration of the Earth cannot be measured separately, for any tool that measures one will also measure the other. And the point where the gravitation of the stars becomes dominant is well above the top of the atmoplane, where Dark Energy is present in any case.

It means that REers criticise FET for not having a proven mechanism by which the Sun can produce energy, yet RET is no better. That's all I was pointing out.

You miss the point that nuclear fusion as process itself has proven and has it's mechanism but we just can't produce the conditions of star here, at the earth. We just don't have technology yet to produce such sustainable nuclear fusion. Or do you want to state that mankind has reached already it's high peak of technology?

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:42:01 AM

Observed positions in what model? FET of course. But where is observed positions for RET model? You didn't bring any. You say that in FET oceans are flat and in same level everywhere. But you can't bring this theory over to RET model because RET model is completely different.
Therefore you can't argue the oceans positions in RET in same bases as oceans positions in FET. You must make the model of reound earth with all its rotating and spinning and gravity and other forces and then you can go and observe how the oceans behave there.

Are you suggesting that Singapore and Helsinki are not both coastal cities in RET? Because I'm pretty sure the ocean is observed to be right beside both of them in both theories.

I am suggesting that Singapore and Helsinki in FET are in same level but in RET they are in different sides of sphere. You can't bring the assumptions which you make for flat and level plane model to the spherical and spinning/rotating model.

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:42:01 AM

The only thing I see which you argue is that because of the difference in g Helsinki must be flooded. And g is different in both models whatever the reason. If you argue that water must flow from places with lower g to places with higher g then they must do so also in flat earth or you must bring in some observable/measurable reason why they aren't. Right now there is two different g's in FET but no reason why water doesn't flow from one place to another.

The reason why they aren't is because the source of gravitation is constantly moving (the stars), unlike in RET where it is stationary relative to the water (the Earth).

What I see is that you just said - if you measure g in one place but at different times then you get different results(source of gravitation is constantly moving).
And still, you specifically argued that water moves because of difference in g(the water is more weakly attracted where g is lower and will move to where gravitation is stronger). And yet you measure two different g's and say that on FET water doesn't move but in RET it should be.

The water should be flowing to where it has least potential energy - that is, the polar regions - if the Earth is round. Naturally, the lack of significant variations in gravitational potential energy on the surface of the Earth in FET means that there should be no such effect if the Earth is flat, which is what is observed.

Again, where did you get your "should be flowing" part in RET model? What kind of model is your model where you observed the water flowing to place where it has least potential energy? You are just making the assumption here based on flat and level earth where it "shoul'd be flowing". I guess it is quite easy to build such a model and observe things but how do you make such a model for RET?

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:42:01 AM

Forgive me my stupidity but I can't read out from there that you can't measure them separately. And if you go up then there must be some height where the pull of stars is stronger than the acceleration part and you can surely measure it.

And the point where the gravitation of the stars becomes dominant is well above the top of the atmoplane, where Dark Energy is present in any case.

In what height this top of atmoplane is? If we have table which shows how g is decreasing in relation of sea level then I am sure we can calculate the height where the line is where earths acceleration effect decreases to 4.7 and we have stars gravitation which is 5.1. But I guess that you are going to argue that in some reason we still measure only earth acceleration to be 4.7 or even 2.0 but we can't in any way measure stars gravitation.