<:vSuccess:390202497827864597> Successfully muted **Psyclone**#0382

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnSBw_sID2Y

<:honkler:596885550238007336> @Czepa

yes?

"...Einstein created his GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics.
Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE , gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

'gravity' IS NOT A FORCE !!!!! :

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation,
NOT AS A FORCE , but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

Brian Cox: "There ISN'T Really A FORCE of gravity at all..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zas--VfFdmk&feature=youtu.be&t=1020

Georgy F##### Musser (2019):
"Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE."

"Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity NOT AS A FORCE..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

"In general relativity, gravity IS NOT A FORCE between masses".
https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/

"Strictly speaking, gravity is NOT A "FORCE..."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564598119590002708/600824134150389771/PendulumMagnet.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564598119590002708/600824153821675531/PendulumCircuit.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564598119590002708/600824138663329878/15-foucaults_pendulum.pdf

@STLdaddy

https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U

https://giphy.com/gifs/whats-pendulum-proves-Qrj6Cz4pEvAHu

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327287168_Measurements_of_the_gravitational_constant_using_two_independent_methods

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

wow pendulum ki

t

incoming

Here's at what I was attempting at getting at with the disregard to certain qualities work.
These days there's a popular trend when simulating things to simulate every possible mechanism we can imagine. Those who think that way would agree with you. Why would you ever make a flat Earth model when everything is eventually going to make its first flight on a real rotating spherical-ish Earth?

This approach works great until you come across real development or computational limits. The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then. For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today. A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops) and has a price tag of around $400.

In those days, you didn't waste computational power on frivolities. It turns out that for a vast array of aeronautical problems, the effects of a flat earth vs. round are minimal (much less the effects of rotating vs. not). If you're shooting a shell 15km, and need it to land with pinpoint precision, you need all that extra complexity. However, many aero problems include a guidance unit which would address any error due to Coriolis effects or the spherical ground the same way it would handle any other errors. It'd simply see it wasn't on the right path and make a correction. The other sources of error here, such as winds, play a far larger effect in deviations from a flight plan, so all the rotating and spherical effects can just get lost in the noise.
Even today, we still make flat Earth models. The reason is not computation time, like it was in 1988, but development time. The more things you model, the more things you need to develop, verify, and maintain. If a particular problem does not call for advanced models, why waste budget developing and maintaining them?

A real life example of this shows up in geoids. Quite often we can do all the modeling we need with a spherical Earth. However, sometimes we find that we need to model the Earth with its proper oblate shape, so we them switch to the WGS84 geoid, or any one of its brethren. The price: all sorts of fun complexities. When I say I have a "forward/right/down" body rotation matrix, is the "down" vector towards the center of the earth, or is it perpendicular to the geoid? On a sphere, they're the same. On an oblate spheroid, I have to take the time to figure out which one was intended. If I don't take the time,

F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2), where F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant, m sub 1 is the mass of the first object, m sub 2 is the mass of the second object and r is the distance between the centers of each object.

The formula you were looking for @mineyful

2(-)2=4

lol if the earth was scaled like that

14 miles is not that noticeable on that scale lmao

if the gif was somewhat accurate that bulge is more like a couple hundred miles

Mount Everest is ~5 miles high

4 Mount Everest's aren't going to show up as a a significant thing on that scale

What. You don’t like @Citizen Z ‘s gif? 😮

lol no if he scaled it right I might

but I shouldn't talk out against authority right

but i should be able to have constructive criticisms against a gif without fear of getting banned

I haven't cursed or thrown out insults, but just pointing out what first comes to mind

sure it's a humorous gif, and it's pretty funny, but from a critical thinking standpoint, it isn't very valid

Usually what first comes to mind is a representation of what we are looking and are hoping for.

like if I followed that map the bulge is like half the width of africa

which doesn't make much sense

It is to represent a concept...no one claimed it was to scale. 🙄

The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings "noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be "put on" or we may be said to "gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back," and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I am curious about the above.