"Falling" towards the earth

It is also a fact that my spelling and grammar is far superior than yours

That's a great sentence.

I believe that you don't really know what you're talking about, Jack is completely owning you.
I don't know that you've ever been to a university level physics course, but if you had, you'd realise you were dead wrong in assuming that the Earth cannot be accelerating upwards.
Gravity is the weakest argument the RE has going for it, I don't know why you persist when there's no way to prove gravity exists.

@bgamelson
you don't seem to understand what relativity says about an object being affected by gravity. lets say I drop something on the moon. although the object appears to be accelerating in our limited view it is actually moving in a straight line in the fourth dimension. Now if we throw air resistance in their although it appears to be stopping its acceleration it is actually creating acceleration in the fourth dimension. Jack correct me if I am wrong.

He's an alt.

Quote from: bgamelson on April 30, 2009, 08:28:11 AM

It is also a fact that my spelling and grammar is far superior than yours

That's a great sentence.

I believe that you don't really know what you're talking about, Jack is completely owning you.
I don't know that you've ever been to a university level physics course, but if you had, you'd realise you were dead wrong in assuming that the Earth cannot be accelerating upwards.
Gravity is the weakest argument the RE has going for it, I don't know why you persist when there's no way to prove gravity exists.

It's because gravity is a law, which means it has been proved.

Jack is not owning me, if he was he'd answer my simple questions.  So far, nobody is willing to answer them.  They're very simple questions too.  I've been answering all his questions, but so far he's answered none of mine.

Do you care to answer them?

@bgamelson
you don't seem to understand what relativity says about an object being affected by gravity. lets say I drop something on the moon. although the object appears to be accelerating in our limited view it is actually moving in a straight line in the fourth dimension. Now if we throw air resistance in their although it appears to be stopping its acceleration it is actually creating acceleration in the fourth dimension. Jack correct me if I am wrong.

Very interesting, and it opens up a whole new question:

How did all those craters get there?  Oh wait, you won't answer that one either.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 30, 2009, 10:19:10 AM

@bgamelson
you don't seem to understand what relativity says about an object being affected by gravity. lets say I drop something on the moon. although the object appears to be accelerating in our limited view it is actually moving in a straight line in the fourth dimension. Now if we throw air resistance in their although it appears to be stopping its acceleration it is actually creating acceleration in the fourth dimension. Jack correct me if I am wrong.

Very interesting, and it opens up a whole new question:

How did all those craters get there?  Oh wait, you won't answer that one either.

because according to relativity it is the moon hitting something that falls not the falling object hitting the moon. however it does not matter which way it happens it will still create a crater. again either Jack or EnigmaZV correct me if I am wrong. All I know about relativity is what I read in my free time so I could be wrong.

Quote from: bgamelson on April 30, 2009, 04:04:02 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 30, 2009, 10:19:10 AM

@bgamelson
you don't seem to understand what relativity says about an object being affected by gravity. lets say I drop something on the moon. although the object appears to be accelerating in our limited view it is actually moving in a straight line in the fourth dimension. Now if we throw air resistance in their although it appears to be stopping its acceleration it is actually creating acceleration in the fourth dimension. Jack correct me if I am wrong.

Very interesting, and it opens up a whole new question:

How did all those craters get there?  Oh wait, you won't answer that one either.

because according to relativity it is the moon hitting something that falls not the falling object hitting the moon.

Since both objects are in motion, wouldn't the objects be hitting each other?  You see, the moon orbits the earth.  The earth just sits there and rotates.  It doesn't move.  So the moon and the rock are two objects, but the rock is smaller and has no gravitational force.  Since both the moon and the rock are in motion, what is the determining factor of which object strikes which object?

Here is a link that explains the moon and the gravity which exists:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html

you understand how gravity appears to affect stuff in the 3rd dimension. That is not what gravity is actually doing if you look at it from the fourth dimensions. 

The earth just sits there and rotates. It doesn't move. So the moon and the rock are two objects, but the rock is smaller and has no gravitational force. 

For someone as devoted to RE and Newton as you, the bold parts are just epic.

you understand how gravity appears to affect stuff in the 3rd dimension. That is not what gravity is actually doing if you look at it from the fourth dimensions. 

In other words, the facts must be changed in order to fit a certain agena.  Perfect example.

Quote from: bgamelson on April 30, 2009, 08:18:55 PM

The earth just sits there and rotates. It doesn't move. So the moon and the rock are two objects, but the rock is smaller and has no gravitational force. 

For someone as devoted to RE and Newton as you, the bold parts are just epic.

Your point?

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 30, 2009, 09:35:20 PM

you understand how gravity appears to affect stuff in the 3rd dimension. That is not what gravity is actually doing if you look at it from the fourth dimensions. 

In other words, the facts must be changed in order to fit a certain agena.  Perfect example.

What fact did I change?

Quote from: bgamelson on May 01, 2009, 06:52:55 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 30, 2009, 09:35:20 PM

you understand how gravity appears to affect stuff in the 3rd dimension. That is not what gravity is actually doing if you look at it from the fourth dimensions. 

In other words, the facts must be changed in order to fit a certain agena.  Perfect example.

What fact did I change?

The fact that the earth is a sphere.

Quote from: Jack on April 30, 2009, 10:32:12 PM

Quote from: bgamelson on April 30, 2009, 08:18:55 PM

The earth just sits there and rotates. It doesn't move. So the moon and the rock are two objects, but the rock is smaller and has no gravitational force.

For someone as devoted to RE and Newton as you, the bold parts are just epic.

Your point?

You don't even know your own stuff.

---

RE:
The Earth doesn't just sit there and rotate; it also orbits around its mother star.

Newton:
An object that seems smaller doesn't mean it exerts no gravitational force.

It is also a fact that my spelling and grammar are far superior than yours.

Fixed. Also, irony.

because according to relativity it is the moon hitting something that falls not the falling object hitting the moon.

[/quote]

LOL @ fail

Seriously this thread is great. Keep it up guys.

What's wrong with that? It means the moon intercepts the path of the object. Both interpretations are equivalent.

What's wrong with that? It means the moon intercepts the path of the object. Both interpretations are equivalent.

Perhaps. Yet optimisticcynic seems to think that "it is the moon hitting something that falls not the falling object hitting the moon".

He's chosen one over the other. And deciding that his pitiful opinion needs credence he adds "according to relativity".

Please more of these.

What's wrong with that? It means the moon intercepts the path of the object. Both interpretations are equivalent.

But it does bring up an interesting point, does it not?  I mean, since we are always looking at the same 'face' of the moon, which is essentially the side always pointed towards earth (I'm being careful to describe this in a way which fits both fet and ret), how do these objects manage to leave craters on the side facing earth?

In RET, it can be explained by the moon being about a quarter million miles away, and revolving around a spherical earth.  It would be vulnerable to being hit by objects in space.

In FET, it is much closer, and rotating around above a flat plane, and being pushed, along with the earth by the UA.  How would these objects, capable of leaving a crater, happen into the path of the moon?

In FET, it is much closer, and rotating around above a flat plane, and being pushed, along with the earth by the UA.  How would these objects, capable of leaving a crater, happen into the path of the moon?

Ever made pancakes? The bubbles come up and burst leaving small craters. You can apply this theory to moon. It was long-long ago hot and surface was liquid and when it cooled down then some bubbles reached to surface and leaved the crater like holes there. Isn't it reasonable?

Ever made pancakes? The bubbles come up and burst leaving small craters. You can apply this theory to moon. It was long-long ago hot and surface was liquid and when it cooled down then some bubbles reached to surface and leaved the crater like holes there. Isn't it reasonable?

However, given that the surface is flexible enough to allow the craters to form, said crates should not last long before sinking back into the soft and plastic Moon. Central peaks in craters and ray craters also do not fit into this model very well.

I do not understand much of physics, but how can something weight more than other things if there is no gravity, but just the earth accelerating upwards? Wouldn't a barbell with 200 kilo feel the same as one with 100 kilos? I am just wondering

i read the first page of this thread and i have a questions for jack (or someone that can answer).

assuming as jack said that when you jump out of a plane, the earth which weighs a bizzilion tonnes accelearates towards you, what if my friend jumped out of a plane on the opposite side of the world to me and it accelerated towards him, do we rip the earth in half?

I mean your idea works on a flat earth, but not round from what i can see.

i read the first page of this thread and i have a questions for jack (or someone that can answer).

assuming as jack said that when you jump out of a plane, the earth which weighs a bizzilion tonnes accelearates towards you, what if my friend jumped out of a plane on the opposite side of the world to me and it accelerated towards him, do we rip the earth in half?

I mean your idea works on a flat earth, but not round from what i can see.

A. don't use bizzilion when arguing science.
B. when something is in free fall nothing is accelerating. it is when something is standing on the surface of the planet that there is acceleration. granted this is when we are talking about something in space-time not how it appears to move in our limited three dimensions. someone correct me if I made a mistake.

i was just going from what jack said.

1) he said the earth accelerates upwards.
2) I always thought the earth accelerated upwards a miniscule amount, and we accelerated downwards (in my noobish highschool/1st year uni physics teachings)
3) Now your saying nothing is accelerating.

I mean what the hell, which is right? By saying nothing is accelerating are they just saying space is bending or something aye, not that we are moving though space, or some confusing crap.

I mean what the hell, which is right? By saying nothing is accelerating are they just saying space is bending or something aye, not that we are moving though space, or some confusing crap.

It's the equivalence principle. What it essentially says is that being pulled down to Earth by an apparent force of gravity would feel exactly the same as the Earth being accelerated up into you.

yeah well, no shit, but it cant. Or else if i jumped out a plane on one side of the world, everyone on the otherside of the world would start floating and feel Zero gravity. This doesnt work on a round earth lol. Well in the first place, what is holding the people on the other side of the world on, the earth cant accelerate outwards in all directions at once, without changing its siZe.

You can claim the earth accelerating upwards crap along with the crap of a flat earth, they fit nicely. But it doesnt work with a round earth, thats what i was trying to say to jack or whatever.

But someone else has confused what i was trying to achieve and has started trying to explain relativity bla to me. Which i half ass get anyway, but dnt really care.

Quote

I mean what the hell, which is right? By saying nothing is accelerating are they just saying space is bending or something aye, not that we are moving though space, or some confusing crap.

It's the equivalence principle. What it essentially says is that being pulled down to Earth by an apparent force of gravity would feel exactly the same as the Earth being accelerated up into you.

Uh huh. It "feels" the same. Not "is" the same.

Uh huh. It "feels" the same. Not "is" the same.

You are dumb and post dumb things.

Quote

I mean what the hell, which is right? By saying nothing is accelerating are they just saying space is bending or something aye, not that we are moving though space, or some confusing crap.

It's the equivalence principle. What it essentially says is that being pulled down to Earth by an apparent force of gravity would feel exactly the same as the Earth being accelerated up into you.

As usual for FEers, you omit the phrase LOCALLY. FE fails once you make the correction as other poster points out successfully.

i was just going from what jack said.

1) he said the earth accelerates upwards.
2) I always thought the earth accelerated upwards a miniscule amount, and we accelerated downwards (in my noobish highschool/1st year uni physics teachings)
3) Now your saying nothing is accelerating.

I mean what the hell, which is right? By saying nothing is accelerating are they just saying space is bending or something aye, not that we are moving though space, or some confusing crap.

he is saying that in the third dimension velocity and acceleration are relative. so as long as you don't feel a force on you you can compare everything velocity and acceleration to you. since when you are falling you can not feel a force on you. negating air resistance you can set everything in comparison to you. including the planet. So no the earth would not be ripped in to by this because you can only mathematically do this in relation to one body at a time. So you would either do this in relation to you or your friend not both.
again any one correct me if I am wrong.