Is the earth round/spherical?

[Nungali]

I have stated before that I think there is more to gravity than we generally understand.  Warped space helps understand things in the macro but it really doesn't apply in the micro, does it?  I mean, when the apple fell on Newton's head it didn't fall in a curved trajectory.  It took the most direct course.  That is, unless we consider the rotation of the Earth.  Wouldn't the apple have to fall in a curve in order to keep up with the rotation of the Earth in order to fall in a straight line?

 

Depends on your point of reference 

[Nungali]

Nope! The (flat) earth accelerated towards the free-floating apple!

 

Yes ....  it has to be flat doesnt it .... otherwise we would have people on earth dropping apples all over the place and ripping the planet apart. 

 

Unless it is expanding all the time    

 

But with the flat earth  continually accelerating upwards at a constant increase of 1 G  ... we have 'gravity'  , which is the disc of the earth racing 'upwards' , while all apples ... although thrown up in the same direction ( now)  will lose their momentum and the earth will catch up with them .....    at an ever increasing rate, depending on the height they achieved ... around   32.2 ft/s^{2 .}

 

 ^{So , If I throw an apple up in my front garden to  x height, and launch an apple up with a sling to 4x in in my back garden,  my back garden will be travelling faster up than my front one}  

 

^{Maybe this is how mountains were formed  ?}    

Edited February 13, 2016 by Nungali

[Nungali]

So, if I understand the videos I posted correctly,

then earth is allegedly flat, but its mass bends its inhabitated space in such a way

that when you "arrive at the end of the plane, you are again at its beginning".

 

 

Lke bending a flat plane into each border of itself until it becomes a sphere .... and then insisting it is still flat .   

[Nungali]

The question is: Is the apple flat or round/spherical?

just kidding...

 

 

Once you demonstrate one sphere can be a flat plane ... thats it !   They all are !

 

Its even started to effect the peaches !      Good God man . what have you done !    

 

 

 

 

 

now everything will start going flat   !  

 

 

 

 

 

 

God damn you Wells!  

 

[Nungali]

Haven't bothered to watch the video and I'm not doubting your understanding of what it presented but that would mean that everything with mass would necessarily appear to be spherical and that is clearly not the case.

 

 

he's right ....

 

 

[Marblehead]

Nope! The (flat) earth accelerated towards the free-floating apple!

I'm not going to buy that one either.

[Marblehead]

The Earth is falling into the gravitational well created by your apple, MH.

That almost sounds vulgar.

[Marblehead]

What type of apple is it?

Macintosh, of course. 

[Marblehead]

... that when you "arrive at the end of the plane, you are again at its beginning".

But that would mean it is round.

[Marblehead]

Well, he doesn't have a strong enough gravity to support that claim.

One should not test my gravity.

[Marblehead]

An apple pie perhaps?  This would make it both flat and apple.

And additionally, Pi are round.

[Marblehead]

I like apple pie. Let's go with that answer.

a la mode

[Marblehead]

At least everything with enough mass to keep satellites in orbit is possibly "in fact" "flat",

as the satellites "really" fly in a straight line through the warped space-time.

I have been in warped space/time a few times.

[Marblehead]

Btw, I never concerned myself with this stuff (gravity, mass, space-time) more than superficially

and therefore have no idea if the videos possibly just misrepresent scientific theories

in a logical but unrealistic way.

But possibly not.

There's actually a lot in the videos I accept as valid or at least it sounds logical.

 

However, there is some stuff that I just cannot accept.

[Marblehead]

But one thing would be logical, if the videos tell the truth:

The current measurement of gravitational waves DOES NOT mean or prove the existence of corresponding particles (gravitons)!

Just the warping of space-time was measured

and gravitational waves are therefore "just an illusion" without "an inherent existence".

I still hold to the understanding that upon the Big Bang the element Hydrogen was created and then the force of gravity which allowed Hydrogen to fuse and create Helium.  All other forces and elements followed.

[Marblehead]

Are there corresponding particles to waves in water? No.

Correct.  No.  However, there is the energy that causes the movement and therefore the waves.

[Marblehead]

I was pointing to the wave-particle duality and the fact that every energy wave is seemingly also a particle.

This then would not apply to gravity waves.

Well, I still state that a particle is an aspect of a wave.  A wave consists of numerous particles.

[Marblehead]

Or the universe is more nuts than someone with no scientific background in physics could ever imagine.

I sometime wonder about the physicists too.

[Marblehead]

True. Gravity waves or water waves? Both.

But wouldn't that apply to photons too?

No, as they have no mass and therefore cannot be waves "in the medium of" time-space

and therefore have to have "an inherent existence" and therefore have a corresponding particle (?)

WoW!  That's a trick question.  But I would question:  Protons are energy.  Right?  Energy = Mass.  Right?

 

Why are protons allowed to operate outside the laws of physics?

[Marblehead]

I regret not to have a background in physics...

That's okay.  I have no background in rocket scientry.

 

(Is that a new word?)

[Marblehead]

Fuji

Are those grown on Mount Fiji?

[Marblehead]

Gravitons.

 

The wave particle duality is not really a duality.  Light, gravity and so on as forces behave paradoxically 'as if' they are particles and also waves.  

I'm still not sure about Gravitons.

[Brian]

You want to reintroduce the aether?

 

Some other findings support this - like galactic spin and dark matter suggest some kind of medium I think.

It should have been "either there is no ether or it is something fundamentally different than we imagined."

 

Virtually nothing is fundamentally the way it was imagined in the mid- to late-19the century but we cling to that "truth" because we were so proud of it (or something...)

 

Archimedes' buoyaprinciple and Netwon's universal gravitation are meaningful today because they described and quantified physical behavior. We get in dangerous territory any time we move beyond "how it seems to work" to philosophical whys or what it is. These are valuable questions, too, but must be approached with humility.

 

Whenever I hear someone boldly profess a profound fundamental understanding of anything, I just grin.

[Marblehead]

I must admit I haven't watched the vids - are they by someone sensible?

You have to listen fast because he speaks fast.

[Marblehead]

The universe is weirder and stranger than one can possibly imagine.

It's very logical if you pretend you don't know anything.