Science not Pseudoscience: Relative Density Disequilibium and Gravity

Falling

The concept of flat-Earth has a major problem that its proponents must overcome: the fact that things fall. We have given this phenomenon the name of gravity. At its most basic level of understanding a smaller object is drawn towards the centre of mass of a larger object. This clearly cannot be the case for a flat Earth.

Undaunted, the flat-Earth community came up with an alternative explanation for falling: relative density disequilibrium. An object, when in a medium of a different density, experiences a force that drives it to find its density equilibrium. I have yet to find someone who can explain the source of the energy differential responsible for this force. I have found no equations that describe this phenomenon.

I have seen flerfs cite buoyancy to explain the behaviour of objects in different media. Unfortunately for the density disequilibrium proponents, buoyancy is a gravitational effect. If you deny a constant downward acceleration, you automagically deny buoyancy, too. More on this later.

Even without mathematics, we can use these two explanations to make predictions. This allows us to perform experiments to find out which one is the better description of our reality.

Relative Density versus Gravity

There are many ways that we can test gravity versus density disequilibrium. First a quick summary of the histories of these two concepts.

Gravity

Johannes Kepler figured out the laws of planetary motion. These were early steps towards our understanding of gravity and how it affects the orbits of astronomical bodies.

Isaac Newton came up with an equation that described, in most cases, how bodies behaved under the influence of gravity. However, he had no idea what caused gravity. He was particularly troubled by the action at a distance.

Einstein realised that gravity is space-time curvature. His equations are much more complicated than Newton's but Newton's equation is a good enough approximation in most circumstances. 

The picture is still not complete because quantum mechanics is absent from our description of gravity.

Relative Density Disequilibrium

The history of density disequilibrium is not documented. I was unable to discover whom I should credit with its origination.

Falsifying the Hypotheses

Buoyancy versus Finding Equilibrium

Buoyancy is a consequence of the acceleration due to gravity. Put an object into a fluid and it displaces that fluid. If the weight of the fluid displaced is less than the object then the buoyant force is greater than the weight and the object floats (e.g. ships on water) or is displaced upwards (e.g. helium balloons).

Strictly speaking, there is no buoyancy with relative density disequilibrium. There is only equilibrium and disequilibrium. Once an object has found its density in an environment, there are no forces acting upon it. There is no downward acceleration and no buoyant force.

The Test: place an object, less dense than water, in water. 

• If gravity is correct, the object will sink into water until a weight of water is displaced equal to the weight of the object
• If relative density disequilibrium is correct, the object sits will sit on top of the water.

Pressure

Imagine a quantity of a fluid of constant temperature, such that there are no density variations and it is in thermal equilibrium. A consequence of the acceleration due to gravity is that the weight of fluid higher up presses down on the fluid lower down. This results in a pressure gradient. Higher pressure at the bottom, lower pressure at the top.

With relative density disequilibrium, the fluid at the top is in density equilibrium with the fluid at the bottom, therefore, there are no forces acting on it. There is no pressure gradient.

The Test: create a long tube with holes placed at regular intervals along its length. Stand the tube vertically and fill with water.

• If gravity is correct, the water shooting out of the lower holes will be under higher pressure than the higher ones and, consequently, will shoot out at a higher speed. The water from the lower holes will project farther than the higher ones.
  
• If relative density disequilibrium is correct, there is no pressure gradient the water will come out at the same speed from each hole. The trajectories of the ejected water will all look the same until the level of the water in the tube reaches the holes.

Another Test: the atmosphere is a fluid mixture of different gases.

• If gravity is correct, we will observe a pressure gradient. Higher altitudes will have lower pressures than lower ones. There will be no definite boundary with the vacuum of space but a gradual reduction to the pressure of gas in the Solar System.
  
• If relative density disequilibrium is correct, then the only pressure gradient we shall observe is due to hot air rising. There will be a definite boundary with space (assuming no container). Air molecules will feel a force that will try to arrange them by density. Denser gases will tend accumulate at lower altitudes when weather conditions are not mixing them.
  

I find it both interesting and ironic that many flerfs claim it impossible to have a boundary between gas pressure and a vacuum without a physical barrier, yet their model predicts one.

I have not done the mathematics but molecules intrinsically seeking to arrange themselves by density does seem to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If this is the case, then that is truly ironic.

Density and Weight

The weight of an object, according to gravity, is its mass multiplied by acceleration. It is as simple as that. For an objects apparent weight, it is necessary to take into consideration the buoyant force acting on it as well.

I have not seen any mathematics relating to weight and relative density disequilibrium. I don't know how weight is calculated in this model. If anyone knows, please let me know. What I do know is that the disequilibrium force is proportional to density as well as mass.

The Test: find an easily compressible material. Put equal amounts of this material on a balance. We know we have the same weight on either side. Compress the material on one side, thereby, increasing its density.

• If acceleration due to gravity is correct, the only property that affects the weight is mass. After compressing one, the two samples of material retain the same weight and remain balanced.
• If relative density disequilibrium is correct, not only mass but also density affects weight. The compressed sample will weigh more and the balance tips on this side. 

Free-Fall

An object that is falling, according to the Theory of General Relativity, does not feel gravity and has no weight. This same object is still in a state of relative density disequilibrium.

The Test: take two immiscible liquids, say oil and water. Water added to oil sinks to the bottom. Oil added to water sits on top. Shake oil and water and it separates back into the two layers. But what about in free-fall?

• If acceleration due to gravity is correct, the oil and water have no weight and will not reform into two layers.
• If relative density disequilibrium is correct, the oil and water will seek their density equilibrium and separate into two layers.
  

Science not Pseudoscience: A Flat-Earth Challenge

A Flat-Earth Challenge

A common mantra used by subscribers to the flat-Earth concept is "I became a flat-Earther when I could not debunk it". I have yet to see an encompassing flat-Earth model that satisfactorily explains all of the astrophysical phenomena that we observe.

A Flat-Earth Model

There is one heliocentric model, just one. This model is used to describe our tiny piece of the cosmos. It is used to make predictions. It does this very well.
There is no singular and consistent flat-Earth model that can do the same. If the flat-Earth community is genuinely serious in its convictions then it should be able to present a model that explains the Universe we observe and can make accurate predictions. So where is it?

Here is a summary of all of the things that this hypothetical model must include and be able to explain. Just one failure and the model is incorrect and is disproved and discarded.

The Sun

The sun rises in the morning from below the horizon. It travels across the sky at a constant speed and maintains a constant angular size. In the evening, it sets below the horizon. Observers at the same latitude see the sunrise and set at the same time. All observers see the same face of the Sun.

The angular size of the sun does change by a minute amount during the course of the year. It is ever so slightly larger in January than it is in July.

The Moon

The Moon is slightly more complicated. While observers on earth see the same face of the Moon, this is only approximately true. The flat-Earth model needs to explain libration. We can, in fact, see just over half of the Moon's surface from the Earth, with a slightly different portion of the surface being visible depending on its position its orbit. Also, the angular size of the moon varies, giving rise to super moons, etc.

The Moon has phases. All observers on Earth witness the same phase.

Eclipses

There are two types of eclipse. A solar eclipse is when the disc of the sun completely or almost completely obscured. A lunar eclipse is when a shadow passes over the moon preventing the sun from illuminating the moon. The flat-Earth needs to not only explain these two phenomena but also be able to predict when they will occur.

The Celestial Sphere

North of the equator, the sky is seen to rotate in an anti-clockwise direction around the north celestial pole. South of the equator, it rotates clockwise around the south celestial pole. Specific stars are either visible or invisible depending on an observer's latitude. For example, no Southern stars can be seen from the Earth's North pole and Polaris cannot be seen south of the equator.

Forces and the Acceleration due to Gravity (or not-Gravity)

Gravity - throw something up in the air and it comes down again. Something at elevation possesses potential energy that converts to kinetic energy as it falls. Sit down on a chair and you can feel it pressing up against you. There is an acceleration of 9.8 m/s² at the Earth's surface. This drops off with altitude. There is also a slight change depending on latitude.

Tides - the waters of the world's oceans and, to a lesser extent, lakes rise and fall in a predictable pattern based related to the motions of the Sun and Moon in the sky.

Sun and Moon - What holds the Sun and Moon in place and causes their motion across the sky?

Atmosphere - the surface of the earth is covered in blanket that is a mixture of gases, mainly nitrogen and oxygen. The pressure of this mixture of gases decreases with altitude.

Earth's Angular Momentum

The principle of the conservation of angular momentum can be used to show that the Earth possesses angular momentum. In other words, the Earth is rotating. If a flat-Earth model is to pass muster it must explain the Coriolis effect. Equipment such as Foucault's pendulum and a laser gyroscope reveal this rotation, therefore, the flat-Earth model needs to be consistent with these pieces of equipment.

 

A Map of the World

Finally, we need to see a working map of the whole world. This map must be good enough for use as a navigational aid. All distances between any two locations must be accurate and precise. The flat-Earth maps we usually see are arimuthal equidistant projections. Distances from the pole (or centre) to other places on the mao are all correct, but distances between any two other locations are distorted.

Conclusion

Toppling the heliocentric model will require more than a collection of distorted "black swan" photographs. The flat-Earth community needs to present a singular model of the flat-Earth that is 100% consistent with the reality that we observe and has predictive power. Handwavery and evasion are not going to cut it. If you cannot explain all of the above with your model, your model is incomplete or wrong. Go away and come back when you have one that can.

Once you have succeeded, you can then work on advanced features of the model, such as vulcanism, plate tectonics, earthquake shadows (the ones explained by a hot iron core in the globe model), jet streams, the length of the day changing by a fraction of a second depending on the time of year, and any other phenomena you might wish to tackle.

Science not Pseudo-Science: Research Flat-Earth

"Research flat-Earth!" This is a mantra of the flat-Earth community. So, I thought, why not?

Flat-Earth

So what is this modern phenomenon of the "Flat-Earth"? The first thing that strikes the casual observer is that members of the flat-Earth community spend very little time trying to prove flatness and much of their time trying to disprove the globe. A basic pattern is repeated, a flerf makes a claim based on an observation and a misunderstanding of mathematics or misinterpretation of science. This claim is touted as proof that the Earth is flat. Then, a group of people debunk the claim. This claim then spread to various flat-Earth outlets. The debunkers are then subjected to ad hominem attacks. It is the same basic pattern as any pseudoscience-ideology.

Flat-Earthers (or Flerfs)

From what I can tell, there are three types of flerf in the community. 

There are people at the top, selling the concept and making money. They do not genuinely believe the flatness paradigm but are very good at dreaming up "proofs" that are good enough to fool enough people to build a following. 

Beneath them are the people who buy the concept. Their poor grasp of physics and mathematics means they are vulnerable to the spurious "poofs" of the flat-Earth sellers.

There is a third category, the Poes. These people create deliberately ridiculous content in the style of genuine material. I presume their motives are to discredit the flat-Earth movement from the inside or perhaps it is just mischief-making.

The Flat-Earth Model (or Lack thereof)

As I mentioned earlier, flerfs put most of the energy into attempting to disprove or debunk the globe or the heliocentric model rather than promote a flat-Earth model. The reason for this is simple. There is no flat-Earth model. Instead of one comprehensive model, a series of different models are required to explain astrophysical phenomena.

The Day/Night Model

To explain day and night, the sun tracks around the flat-Earth in a perfect circle lighting up a semi-circle (somehow). Another version has a more circular area lit by the sun surrounded by a crescent shape of darkness.

The Seasons Model

To explain the seasons the sun tracks around the flat-Earth spiralling between the tropic of Cancer and the larger tropic of Capricorn. Somehow, the sun can travel around a larger circle in the same time as a smaller one but still maintain the same speed across the sky. The Seasons model is inconsistent with the Day/Night model because we no longer have exactly half of the Earth illuminated.

Eclipses Model

The usual story is that the Sun and the Moon are the same size and equally far away. Unfortunately, we have eclipses; Lunar eclipses are particularly problematic as they require the Earth to be between the Sun and the Moon. To get around this, a Shadow Object is invoked (sometimes called the Anti-Moon) that passes in front of the Moon or the Sun, depending on the type of eclipse. Unless the object is causing an eclipse, it is totally invisible and undetectable, and has no discernable effect on any other astronomical body.

Gravity

A big problem for the flat-Earth concept is gravity. Gravity draws objects to the centre of mass and, therefore, cannot work on a flat-Earth. What is the solution? Easy, deny its existence.

The most common explanation is density and buoyancy. Objects fall or rise until they achieve a density-equilibrium with their surroundings. To shore up their concept, they cite the gravity-defying properties of helium balloons, etc. Problems that still need to be addressed are explanations for the directionality of the effect and what is causing the medium to remain on the Earth.

Some of the brighter sparks have figured out that density/buoyancy does not cut it to describe the acceleration due to "definitely-not-gravity". The Earth's crust has a very slight negative charge. Aha! Says an imaginative flerf, it is electromagnetism. The electromagnetic force pulls things to the ground. There are still a few things to work out here, for example, why do electrically charged objects fall at the same rate as uncharged ones? Why aren't negatively charged objects repelled? Why do magnetic and non-magnetic materials all fall at the same rate?

An interesting attempt at an explanation is Universal Acceleration. The basic idea is that an unknown force is constantly accelerating the whole (!) flat-Earth system. This draws on the equivalence principle (i.e. it is impossible to tell the difference between being in a gravitation field and being accelerated). The problem with this explanation is that the acceleration we experience diminishes the higher up we get.

Flat-Earth Mantras

Flerfs repeat a stock list of clichés so often that it almost seems like there is an official script.

Ask someone how they joined up and the answer will almost certainly be along the lines of: "When first I read about flat-Earth, like everyone else, I laughed. When I tried to debunk it, I found I couldn't. That is when I became a flat-Earther."

"Water always finds its level." In other words, water always forms a flat, planar surface rather than conforming to the forces applied to it.

"I trust my senses." Considering how easy it is to fool our senses, this seems like a perilous premise on which to build a world view.

"Spinning at 1,000 mph." There are two observations to make from this. Firstly, flerfs cannot get their heads around the concept of angular velocity. Secondly, they cannot cope with modern units. This is a particularly dirty trick that is played here. Moving at 1,000 mph sounds very fast. Rotating at a rate of 1 revolution per day, not so much.

"Water doesn't stick to a ball." To prove it, water is poured over a ball. We are probably deeper in Poe territory here rather than true-believer.

"Air can't resist a vacuum," but high-pressure air at low altitude can resist low-pressure air at high altitude.

"There are no genuine photographs of the globe" and "It's CGI". The technology behind computer-generated imagery is truly impressive. It was used to create pictures of the globe years before it was invented. The only pictures of the flat-Earth, I have ever seen, are drawings.

"We see farther than we should." This phrase is used when a flerf uses a picture to demonstrate a lack of understanding of refraction. They are particularly keen on the so-called black swan photographs. These pictures are always taken over water and while they show a picture of an object well-beyond the physical horizon it is within the apparent horizon explicable by our understanding of the behaviour of light through the atmosphere. While the subjects of the photographs are far away, they are not particularly distant compared with the scale of the Earth. Where is the photograph of the coast of the United States taken from Ireland?

"Research Flat-Earth," by which they mean, "consume our content".

Northern Hemisphere Chauvinism

Our modern civilisation originated on the Northern hemisphere. Our Western culture exists on that side of the globe. It is all too easy to forget that the seasons and the rotation of the celestial sphere are reversed on the other side of the equator. Flat-earth models require that the southern hemisphere behaves differently from the northern.

Crazy conspiracy theories pop up to get around this glaring problem. Who can forget the one that stated that Australia is a hoax? The Antarctic circle experiences the midnight sun in its summer, just as the Arctic does. To get around this, the Antarctic Treaty is invoked. No one is allowed to go there. Apparently, the governments of the world have banded together to militarise (contrary to the treaty) Antarctica. The hundreds of tourists who go there every year must be paid actors. The military sentinels of this part of the planet must have developed highly advanced stealth technology because no one has ever seen and photographed it.

What is in it for the Flat-Earthers?

At first glance, there seems little or no point in arguing about the shape of our planet. A group of people puts a lot of time and effort into it, so they must get something out of it.
It is said there are two types of flat-Earther: those that sell the T-shirts and those that buy them. This supplies one strong motive, money. Google is clamping down on charlatans, pseudoscience and woo practitioners, but there are also books, T-shirts and other merchandise.
The other motive is attention. It is not difficult to find narcissists who hold court over the faithful. They have limited knowledge of physics and mathematics. This is not a problem because, for them, flat-Earth is about their egos and has nothing to do with reality. A normal person, unfortunate enough to encounter one of these individuals, can expect gas-lighting, name-calling and not even a semblance of two-way discourse.

Why is this Dangerous?

There is no doubt that flat-Earth is a hoax. A group of conmen perpetuate it for profit. Does it really matter if my friend who struggled with mathematics at school believes the Earth is flat? Ridicule aside, it is not going to be detrimental to a person's everyday life. The danger lies in it being a step-stone to other, more harmful, hoaxes and conspiracy theories. Our hypothetical friend may find a sense of belonging in the flat-Earth community. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that this person may look elsewhere. Our mathematically-challenged friend may join the ranks of the anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO activists, climate change deniers, etc, etc, etc. This person we previously ridiculed has now become a threat.

Flat-Earth Industry

A flat-Earth industry has evolved on YouTube. We have videos promoting flat-Earth and other videos debunking them.
The pattern is consistent. A flerf posts a video that says "Here is an astrophysical phenomenon I don't understand, therefore, the globe/heliocentric model is wrong." A short time later a response video appears explaining the real science and mathematics in the flerf's video, often with a thick helping of ridicule.

 

Debunking Flat-Earth without Equations

1) Stars

There are two hemispheres of stars, North and South. The behaviour of one hemisphere exactly mirrors the other. In the North, they move around the sky in an anti-clockwise direction and in the South, clockwise.

1) Polaris

The angle of the position of Polaris, to a good approximation, gives the latitude of the observer in the Northern hemisphere. It cannot be seen from the Southern hemisphere.

3) Eclipses

Eclipses do not work with a flat-Earth. We are given advance warning of eclipses from astronomers who subscribe to a global Earth and the heliocentric model. We do not get predictions of eclipses from the Flat-Earth Society.

4) Maps

There is no working map of a flat-Earth. All two-dimensional maps are projections that distort the true shape of landmasses and oceans.

5) Sunset and Sunrise

We observe the sun appear from below the horizon in the East, travel across the sky and drop down below the horizon again, in the West. What it does not do is trace a circle above us in the sky, getting larger and smaller as it approaches and recedes.

Science Fiction not Sci-Fi: The Great Filter and the Great Silence

I have had some thoughts regarding the Great Filter and the Great Silence. Before we get into this, some definitions and background information. 

Great Filter - On Earth, life got started, evolved and produced an intelligent animal that created a planet-spanning civilisation. So far, we have not detected another example of this. It is surmised that there are filters that life must survive to flourish. The first is getting started in the first place. Once we have single-celled organisms, we need to jump to multi-celled. We then need to evolve intelligence and create a technological civilisation. The Great Filter is that which prevents civilisations from colonising the Galaxy. The big question is, where is the Great Filter? Is it before us, behind us or are we in its midst? 

Link to Wikipedia's entry on the Great Filter. 

Great Silence - when it comes to extraterrestrial civilisations, the cosmos is silent. There is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of an extraterrestrial civilisation. The famous (or perhaps infamous) Drake equation can be used to estimate how many alien civilisations might be out there. Depending on what numbers one puts into the equation, the number of potential civilisations could be high. Our planet is a relative latecomer to the Galactic stage; there has been more than enough time for aliens to evolve a civilisation detectable from space. This begs the question, where are they?

Links to Wikipedia's entries on the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation.

Where are They?

Broadly speaking, there are two realistic possibilities to explain the Great Silence. Firstly, the aliens are there but we are too primitive to be able to detect them. Secondly, there are no aliens, therefore, something is wiping them out. If a phenomenon is exterminating life before it can colonise the Galaxy, what is it? Should we be concerned?

Evolutionary Game Theory

Consider a population of beings in an advanced civilisation in rather simplistic terms: "cooperators" and "belligerents". Cooperators share food and resources, while belligerents are aggressive, stealing and selfishly gather, perhaps hoard, these things for themselves.

Game theory, when applied to evolution, states that there will be a stable ratio of these two types to maintain the status quo. A society of all cooperators is unstable because the appearance of very few belligerents can cause havoc and devastate the population. Conversely, having too many belligerents is also unstable for obvious reasons.

Human populations are comprised of approximately 1% psychopaths and 99% non-psychopaths. Accordingly, we must conclude this is a stable ratio. However, we have built a technological civilisation where the impact of one psychopath can, and does, have a grossly disproportionate effect on the whole planet. 

It is safe to assume that Richard the Lionheart, Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan were psychopaths. King Richard bankrupted England to wage a bloody war in the Middle East. Julius Caesar committed genocide in Gaul to further his career. Genghis Khan slaughtered millions in his quest to carve out a Mongolian empire. These men were devastating but there was no danger of human extinction. 

We had a stable human population but not any more. Now, we have psychopaths who can overcome that stability. Imagine if Hitler had had a nuclear arsenal; he could have made the planet burn, not just his adopted Fatherland, as defeat consumed the Third Reich. Today, we have the likes of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin who hold massive sway over what happens not just to their countries but to the whole planet.

If we survive the twenty first century's rise of fascism, how long before the world forgets about "Never Again!", again? What happens when Hitler 3.0 rises to wreak havoc on our global civilisation? I never expected to see the return of fascism in my lifetime. The fact that it has happened shows how easy it is for us to fall. All it takes is the right psychopath in the right circumstances and history repeats itself, again.

Link to Wikipedia's entry on Evolutionary Game Theory.

The Great Filter?

So, I hypothesize that the Great Filter is (in human terms) the psychopath who goes too far. If the means exist for a civilisation to end itself, then sooner or later, someone will come along who is crazy or shortsighted enough to make it happen. Threats exist in many forms. The most obvious is a thermonuclear war in a mutually assured destruction scenario. Other scenarios are possible, maybe even more probable. The biggest threat currently facing the human species is an environmental one. Will our angry youth be able to turn the tide against those pushing the profits-before-planet agenda?

Anti-science movements are infecting the planet like a pathogenic virus. Putin's Internet trolls have weaponised pseudoscience to attack the West. Far-Right groups are using data mined from social media to manipulate populations. We have seen the return of measles and outbreaks of other diseases once tamed by vaccines. Pseudo- and tobacco science is keeping climate change denial very much alive. A famous entrepreneur went to a quack to seek treatment for terminal cancer. Activists have caused malnutrition because of ideological objections to a method of creating new species. The list goes on. I have not even mentioned religious extremism.

We have an ailing civilisation. We have psychopaths in positions of power. These men have access to resources that could devastate the planet. They are pursuing policies that are detrimental to the environment. Will we survive this fraught period in our history?

Even if we do make it to the stars, is there any guarantee that our colonies can avoid repeating the same mistakes? I don't see how they can.