UA vs gravity

UA states that earth rushes up towards us at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. The RE theory states that we are being "pulled down" by earth's gravity at roughly the same number. Now to get to the point, if I go out and measure the acceleration of a falling object on earth, I can observe that the number differs from area to area. This observation is easily explained with the RE'ers gravity, as the earth's "pull" is weaker or stronger depending on the distance to the earth's core. So on the northpole the acceleration is higher than on the eqautor, which holds true to our observations and measurements.

In the aformentioned FET however it would mean that different parts of the disc are accelerating at different speeds. The disc shape therefor disappears over time and (according to the FE map) the world would have a sinusoid like shape when a crossection is viewed from the side. In fact over a period of time the disc would just disintegrate (the earth can only "stretch" so far).

Please explain this to us, FE'ers.

If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.

Quote

If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.

But then the FET is flawed in that it is saying that there is gravity, or is the FET going to tell me that only "special" celestial bodies of mass may "have gravity". BTW. let us not turn this into the little semantic game of gravity/gravitation that TB seems to like to play. (Not implying that you were doing that)

Well, I wouldn't say that is a flaw just because one set of things have gravitational pull and others don't.  The Earth is not like the heavenly bodies.

Quote from: Raver on June 18, 2010, 07:23:32 AM

Quote

If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.

But then the FET is flawed in that it is saying that there is gravity, or is the FET going to tell me that only "special" celestial bodies of mass may "have gravity". BTW. let us not turn this into the little semantic game of gravity/gravitation that TB seems to like to play. (Not implying that you were doing that)

Well, I wouldn't say that is a flaw just because one set of things have gravitational pull and others don't.  The Earth is not like the heavenly bodies.

Quote from: John Davis on June 18, 2010, 07:25:51 AM

Quote from: Raver on June 18, 2010, 07:23:32 AM

Quote

If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.

But then the FET is flawed in that it is saying that there is gravity, or is the FET going to tell me that only "special" celestial bodies of mass may "have gravity". BTW. let us not turn this into the little semantic game of gravity/gravitation that TB seems to like to play. (Not implying that you were doing that)

Well, I wouldn't say that is a flaw just because one set of things have gravitational pull and others don't.  The Earth is not like the heavenly bodies.

The earth is made up of atoms which have mass. Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation, so why would the earth not cause gravitation?

primarily because things can't accelerate at different rates vertically and have the same height.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 18, 2010, 01:50:02 PM

primarily because things can't accelerate at different rates vertically and have the same height.

Please, review Born rigidity and especially Rindler coordinates. I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress. For the object to maintain its proper length, its parts must experience different rates of acceleration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath422/kmath422.htm

Jack must have taken a class that went over relativity for a couple lessons, and now considers himself an expert in the subject. He likes spouting off relativistic concepts, regardless of their relation to the topic at hand.

Jack must have taken a class that went over relativity for a couple lessons, and now considers himself an expert in the subject. He likes spouting off relativistic concepts, regardless of their relation to the topic at hand.

If I misinterpret your statement, I apologize. I thought you meant it is possible for a relativistic object to experience the same rate of acceleration along its length. As for calculating the variation of g using Born rigidity, I have not. According to the equations, either the values would be very small or the Earth would be extremely long in order to account the observed effects based on just Born rigidity alone. Fortunately, as I have said before in the other thread, we also have to account the gravitational pull of the stars. I am just saying that the Earth must undergo Born rigid motion in the proper reference frame regardless, in order to stay consistent with the laws of physics.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 19, 2010, 09:24:30 AM

Jack must have taken a class that went over relativity for a couple lessons, and now considers himself an expert in the subject. He likes spouting off relativistic concepts, regardless of their relation to the topic at hand.

I never claimed myself to be an expert on the subject.

I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.

Congratulations on once again destroying FET.

thats okay~
what I said was different acceleration at the same height. i.e. on the same horizontal plane. but regardless, you admit that there has to be a force impacting things at different heights differently. but why don't you think this force effects the earth?

Quote from: Crustinator on June 19, 2010, 02:36:24 PM

Congratulations on once again destroying FET.

No, I have not. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 19, 2010, 01:17:31 PM

thats okay~
what I said was different acceleration at the same height. i.e. on the same horizontal plane. but regardless, you admit that there has to be a force impacting things at different heights differently. but why don't you think this force effects the earth?

The reason is that since the accelerating Earth currently remains intact in the proper frame, it must be undergoing Born rigid motion.

No, I have not. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this.

Quote from: Jack on June 18, 2010, 04:36:01 PM

I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.

Quote from: Jack on June 18, 2010, 04:36:01 PM

I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.

how could it affect objects not named earth but not the earth itself

What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. As for the variation of g at the same height, such variation is generally caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens.

Yeah, what about it? How does that destroy FET?

Quote from: Jack on June 18, 2010, 04:36:01 PM

...Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.

Quote from: Jack on June 20, 2010, 04:50:49 AM

Yeah, what about it? How does that destroy FET?

Because...

Quote from: Crustinator on June 19, 2010, 02:36:24 PM

Quote from: Jack on June 18, 2010, 04:36:01 PM

...Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.

Quote from: Crustinator on June 20, 2010, 03:44:20 AM

Quote from: Jack on June 18, 2010, 04:36:01 PM

I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.

Yeah, what about it? How does that destroy FET?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:51:24 AM

how could it affect objects not named earth but not the earth itself

What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. As for the variation of g at the same height, such variation is generally caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens.

Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?

Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 05:52:20 AM

Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?

I have been thinking about this. I believe there are certain celestial bodies that do not move.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:36:19 PM

Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else

The Earth is not composed of gravitational mass.

Crustinator, I repeatedly asked you to explain how my statement contradicts FET, but you failed to do so and resorted to blank quoting instead. If you are not willing to contribute in Flat Earth Debate, stay out of it.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 05:52:20 AM

Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?

I have been thinking about this. I believe there are certain celestial bodies that do not move.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:36:19 PM

Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else

The Earth is not composed of gravitational mass.

Quote from: Jack on June 20, 2010, 12:55:06 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 05:52:20 AM

Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?

I have been thinking about this. I believe there are certain celestial bodies that do not move.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:36:19 PM

Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else

The Earth is not composed of gravitational mass.

Why do all the celestial bodies we can see move? Are they invisible?

And why can we take metal from the ground, form them into spheres, and perform the Cavendish experiment on them and get a positive result? Do they only somehow become gravitational mass when they are taken above the surface of the earth?

Crustinator, I repeatedly asked you to explain how my statement contradicts FET, but you failed to do so and resorted to blank quoting instead. If you are not willing to contribute in Flat Earth Debate, stay out of it.

Your statement directly disproves FET. You invoke Special Relativity to do it. Which part don't you understand? Since they're your own posts I thought you understood them. How wrong of me.

Ok, so not only does the equivalence principle not exist, but some atoms have gravity but others don't. ok that's cool I guess. actually no, rocks have mass but the earth below doesn't? lava has mass when it comes to the crust, but not when its under the surface? are you for serious??? that's ludicrous