If you make an accurate statement, he doesn't refute it.

He refuted the statements that gravitational attraction obeys the inverse square law, and that it is capable of imparting motion to a static body. Both of those are accurate.

Newton's model follows the inverse square law.

Gravitation doesn't impart motion on a static body.

The inverse square law of Newton's model **does not conflict** with anything subsequently amended by the current gravity model. It still applies. It remains an accurate statement.

I genuinely fail to see how motion is NOT imparted to a static body by gravity. I suspect your lack of explanation is a deliberate attempt to get someone to disagree with you and trip up (strange, you're almost like the "Engineer"'s alt in that respect...) Therefore, I would like you to explain what imparts motion to an apple which I'm holding stationary, and then I let go of it. I strongly suspect your answer will rely heavily on semantics rather than physics.

Newton's model is great for most applications. It doesn't work at relativistic speeds or in strong gravitational environments though, that is why we need Einstein's more complex model. I use Newton's model all the time, it is a lot simpler to work with and provides an accurate answer for most applications.

Also, don't compare me to TheEngineer, that's a bit insulting. Sorry for not explaining further, I was running errands, and typed out a quick response on my phone. Mass curves/distorts space time. The greater the mass, the greater the curvature/distortion. The difficulty in seeing this is due to us being used to seeing objects in a non-curved space. An object in free fall actually follows a straight line, but space time is curved/distorted, so it has the appearance that the object is curving/moving. The easy way to visualize this is to think of how airline flights fly along great circle routes. On a flat map, it appears the aircraft is flying a curved route, but if you look at the flight in a curved space (a globe), the flight is straight (neglecting the curvature of Earth, since it can't fly through the Earth).

Anyway, the surface of the Earth is accelerating up to meet the object, however, this isn't the same as a flat Earth accelerating upward as if propelled from underneath as the acceleration varies all over the surface of the Earth. We can measure this acceleration with accelerometers to confirm that the acceleration varies across the globe. If the flat Earth model were true, it would have ripped apart a long time ago due to these variations in acceleration at different points.

Back to your original question, when you are holding an apple, you are accelerating the apple. A force is required to hold it where it is as the apple wants to follow a geodesic to the center of mass that is causing the gravitational field. Release the apple and it is no longer subject to the force from your hand and follows the geodesic towards the center of Earth's mass until the Earth has accelerated up to meet it. Geodesics in a gravitational field can go in all sorts of directions depending on the initial motion of the object.

Now, all of that is harder to visualize and calculate. If we switch the frame of reference, we get Newton's model, which is much simpler and easier to use. To summarize, Einstein's model is correct and true (as far as we know at least) and Newton's model is correct for a certain set of circumstances (which includes dropping an apple from your hand). Newton's model is never true, but it doesn't have to be to correctly answer most questions. Most engineers understand this and I want to believe TheEngineer does as well. If two models are both correct for the application, use the simpler model.

You just used the phrase "until the Earth has accelerated up to meet it."

Since strictly speaking there is no difference (according to relativity) between the earth moving to meet the apple, and the apple moving to meet the earth, and you have just stated that motion occurs (two objects change relative positions in spacetime, which is a fairly good definition of motion). You have also stated that this motion is a result of objects following spacetime geodesics (which is what gravity is if it isn't a force).

If there were no geodesics to follow (i.e. gravity was absent) then according to your description, that motion would not occur. The fact that the apple is static due to the force from my hand does not negate that it is static. It is static because two opposing influences are in balance.

Therefore, according to your own description, gravity causes an object to move, and is therefore capable of imparting motion to a static body.

As I suspected, your argument rested entirely on fancy language and making something very simple very complicated and hoping nobody would notice that saying "the earth accelerates to meet the apple" is a reversible statement.

2/10.

You asked one question, "does gravitation impart motion on a static object" that I answered, then you refuted my answer using a different question, "does gravitation impart motion between a static object and the Earth."

That is similar to asking me if you press the accelerator in your car, will it cause the parked car is front of you to move and when I say "no," you say that it is moving when you press the accelerator as now the cars are closer together. It doesn't change the fact the parked car didn't move.

What question are you asking, the question from your original post or the reply?

Also, holding an apple in your hand isn't static, it's accelerating away from the center of Earth's mass. If you don't believe me, download an accelerometer app for your phone (if you have one), and measure the acceleration while holding it. If the object is static, then the acceleration should be zero.