Thougths on Flat-earth people

Fathoming the microscopic structure of space-time is the problem of quantum gravity, which has flummoxed physicists from Einstein on. Put three theorists in a room and you will hear four ideas for what it could be: A chessboard-like arena of discrete cells, a foam of fluctuating geometry, a condensate of vibrating strings, a fabric of interwoven loops, and more.
Theorists are now finding that many of these diverse possibilities have a common feature: Space on its finest scales sheds all of its dimensions but one, taming gravity in the process. In fact, a one-dimensional space is the only venue in which the force of gravity doesn’t explode as distance shrinks.
Whether the dimensional shrinkage saves space-time as a fundamental feature of nature, or is a prelude to its final disappearance, remains unclear. Whatever the case may be, though, “two dimensions [one space and one time] seems to be the natural dimensions where gravity wants to live,” in the words of theoretical physicist Frank Saueressig of Radboud University in the Netherlands

Eh, Einstein was wrong about most things. I think Mark Van Raamsdonk is on the right track by basically describing gravity as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.

Building Up Spacetime With Quantum Entanglement

Anyway, I suspect all flat earthers are just trolling.

I am reading a book about Einstein and anti-gravity. It is impossible to put down …

5 Likes

image

5 Likes

I’m not even gonna lie @SharonSmarty, after reading through @SunPowerGuru and @JuiceeLoot comments ITT, I really needed that… CATS ARE CRAZY!

2 Likes

Flat Earthers seem to be Most Brave though. The only thing they fear is sphere itself.

6 Likes

Of all the Guru’s I know, you are hands down my favorite. I can not see any argument in your math, looks very sound. I do have a question though about acceleration. What force is propelling us forward at 9.8 meters per second squared, If Gravity, where is it coming from? The sun? The center of the universe? The farthest parts of the universe? Black hole? I think for our planet to keep accelerating to the point you describe, that, there is something it is heading for, or being pulled by. Other wise If you were in space, stationary relative to the sun, or Mars, or Venus, etc., the Earth would be moving at an impressive rate. Or just assign a space stationary status. There’s no preferred ‘background’ position. Earth is somewhere between stationary and light speed based upon your frame of reference. If earth is your reference point then the earth is going 0 mph. The earth is only going thousands of mph in reference to the sun so you would have to stand next to the sun to view the speed. In order to get there you have to slow way the f down in relation to the sun, since we are traveling thousands of mph in relation to it. Expanding on this - velocity is always relative, and in order to derive a measurement of velocity you have to pick a reference point you’re comfortable with calling static. The “thousands of miles per hour” referenced in the question you correctly identify as the velocity around the sun - IE, the sun is the static reference point chosen. By this logic, you can choose any reference point to be static: if you were on a planet traveling around the sun at the same rate as Earth but backwards, then chose the new hypothetical planet as your static reference point, you could say that Earth’s speed is actually double the amount of those “thousands of miles per hour” because of where you’re standing and how you’re observing the Earth.

If you believe gravity is a force then:

To be clear, 9.8 meters per second squared is acceleration due to gravity on Earth, not gravitational force. Two different concepts. and scientifically speaking is a constant value in physics formulas to determine how fast an object is traveling after a certain amount of time in “free fall”. And again force and acceleration are different. In fact, Force = mass x acceleration.

Many many decades back My Husbands Father Calculated the known movement of Galaxies etc. with the Path and rotation of Earth to Guesstimate a Speed of 2.7 Million Miles per Hour for Us Earthlings. Being Pulled basically to the Great Attractor I believe. I’m sure that number is now much more refined one way or the other.

1 Like

I prefer my Physics Stringy not Loopy!
Quantum entanglement : Thru a string theory point of view,

Flat earthers say we are being propelled at that rate, not me. It’s one of the most glaring flaws in their argument. As you pointed out, F=ma, so it would have to equal the mass of the whole planet times the acceleration they say replaces gravity. They never mention the source of this force.

There are no static reference points in any real sense. Everything is moving relative to everything. Worse, the way we experience time itself varies with speed. For example, from a photon’s perspective, time doesn’t exist. For that matter, distance doesn’t exist if you are a moving at the speed of light. So a photon emitted from a distant star reaches us after travelling at the speed of light for billions of years will have moved zero distance in zero time from its perspective.

The only thing crazier than flat earth theory is reality!

1 Like

If that doesn’t make your head hurt enough, consider this…

If a photon moves from point A to point B, from its perspective it has moved no distance and taken no time. Since “speed” is a function of distance covered in some amount of time, it doesn’t see itself as moving at all. This means the speed of light is zero.

Haha.

1 Like

Wow Sassy!!! I had no clue you were married!!

I don’t know much at all about the great attractor but found this video on line.

They keep trying to prop up their failing “Big Bang” theory. Cosmic Background Radiation is supposed to be one of their proofs.

If there was a big bang, we should have been travelling away from it since it happened, so we aren’t at the center of the universe. Like all radiation, microwaves follow the inverse square law. If you go twice as far away, it should be 1/4 the intensity. So why is this background radiation uniform in all directions? It shouldn’t be unless we were at the center.

Big bang started when Hubble noticed galaxies are all red shifted, which he took to mean everything is moving away from us. He was obviously wrong, since 2 small galaxies are colliding with ours now, and Andromeda is headed our way. Let’s throw a mystical “Great Attractor” on this because, ummmm, well big bang fails without one.

If gravity curves space, then the light from distant galaxies isn’t coming at us in a straight line, its moving straight through curved space. Curved lines are longer, so it gets stretched, or red shifted. The more distant the light source, the more curved space it transits, so it looks more red shifted. This isn’t rocket science. OK, I guess you could call it rocket science, but it’s not complicated.

Our galaxy is collapsing, everything is being pulled towards the center. That’s just the way gravity works. One would therefore expect stars opposite us to be blue shifted, because they are getting closer. But no, they are red shifted too. Why? Their light is moving through curved space caused by the mass of the other stars and maybe a black hole at the center of our galaxy.

Most of cosmology is based on flawed assumptions made 100 years ago. Instead of starting over, they keep slapping bandages on their goofy ideas.

PS: This is not the same as gravitational lensing.

This reminds Me that because of the vacuum in Space We stopped using the term Big Bang. To us the Big Flash started it all.

Very Good submissions SPG… p.s. When I said 'We and Us" above I meant the Few Science bent members in My Family use the term Big Flash.

1 Like

Can you attach a link for this collapse?

This statement say that gravity doesn’t exist as a force. Am I understanding this correctly?
I understand Gravity as nothing more than acceleration. And don’t think there is a force pulling on everything from everything,

I think mass curves space & time, and that everything is moving in a straight line, but gets stuck in the ripple of other objects, and velocity is the only thing keeping things from joining each other.

This to me goes back to static, the position of the observer is the view he/she has, so to see it differently we need to move to a different position. I think we want to think we are at the center due to our vanity & defiance of a pointless existence.
So do you think it is the planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and every mass or groups of masses that are moving? Or is space itself moving until it has reached it’s limit, then shifting back to where it started like a rubber band might do?
I have had a long day and will re-read this tomorrow, and should be able to respond more coherently then. Huggs SPG
And Thanks Lorentito for this wonderful thread, I hope I am not going to far away from the reason you wrote it…

I don’t have a l;ink, but I think one of them is called Antlia 2. Galaxies don’t really collide, they more or less just co-mingle. IF they are of more or less equal size, they then form a globular galaxy.

I think gravity is a force. On earth, gravity is the force that is accelerating us towards the center of the planet. Since the earth is spinning, we would fly off without this force holding us down. What else could be accelerating us in that direction?

Yes, Einstein said that mass curves space, and this is when we call gravity. Then again, he also thought that mass is an inherent property of matter. The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 kinda disproved this. So what is gravity? Is it an exchange of virtual particles called gravitons? Some differential in the gluon field? Eh, nobody knows!

I don’t think space itself is moving, at least not expanding uniformly. It can get distorted, twisted, and so on, but is generally static-ish. Basically, an anti-de Sitter space.

I don’t want to hijack this thread any more than we have. Start a new thread and I’ll tell you the way I think it works… The Big-ish Kersplat hypothesis.

1 Like

This presents a major problem for the most famous equation in physics, E=MC2. If the universe began as a super-dense (hot) energy soup, at what rate did energy convert to matter before there was a Higgs field? How did it make the conversion at all? How does the Higgs boson, a particle with mass, get created so that it can establish the Higgs field?

Early universe questions are great ways to exercise the mind. Scientists know they do not have the answers yet because they run into singularities and infinities. All these words signify is “?”.

Just to be a pain in the butt - I do not think gravity is a force. It is a property. Gravity describes the degree of warping of spacetime by massive objects. This explains why we don’t have gravitons or graviolas or gravioloios. :slight_smile: Gravity waves are easily explained using this premise though and we have observed those (we think - LIGO is a weird weird setup).

Is it just a coincidence that the abbreviations for expected value and electron volts are so similar? There’s the poker tie-in.

2 Likes

Tried to delete and move to new thread but system is telling me “an error has occurred” when I try to delete the post.

Earth is flat.

Though the earth is spherical, most of us feel its flat. This is very similar to the famous deliberation on ship of Theseus. “When a ship is dismantled and rebuilt again, will it remain the same ship”. Its the question of conception. If it is dismantled to the extend it breaks the conception of the ship then it becomes a different ship. Earth’s conception is that it was born flat and its part of the sun. Later its curling up is not enough to alter the initial conception of being flat. That’s why earth is flat or we feel its flat.