FE Gravity

Despite all the vigilant posts of ‘TheEngineer’ in the manner: “Gravitation is acceleration”, one who keeps to oneself must admit that the current framework of FE Gravity simply has holes in it. The major inconsistencies are the following:

1) Objects near to the surface of the Earth fall when released, while celestial objects, such as the Sun and the Moon remain at the same relative altitude for very long periods of time;

2) The current FE model of gravity is not able to successfully explain the variation of the acceleration of free fall at different locations on the Earth and its decrease with altitude.

While there might be some other cases where FE Gravity fails, these two are sufficient to show you that there certainly is a problem with the theory. In my opinion, this is due to the fact that the model is based on the General Theory of Relativity, a theory developed with the RE model before its view at all times. Even though there might not be an explicit reference to the shape of the Earth, this is implicitly assumed. For example, since GR duplicates the results of the older theory of Universal Gravitation by Sir Isaac Newton for weak gravitational fields, it also admits the roundness of the Earth, since this is a common fact in the Newton’s theory.

So, the solution must be looked for in a new theory consistent with the FE model from the start and not relying on RE Theories. Otherwise, endless discussions with no conclusion are inevitable. But, mind you that the two greatest intellects in Physics, Newton and Einstein worked on these problems. So, unless you can compare your knowledge of facts and analytical powers with theirs, expect an impossible task.

I am certain that gravity is part of the conspiracy.

I am certain this thread is dog shit.

I'm glad every gravity/acceleration argument doesn't get its own thread. We'd be swamped.

I am certain this thread is dog shit.

See my signature. Your certainty means nothing.

Who are you trying to convince?

I'm still confused regarding the second point in this thread.

Sadly, all the trolls flock to it and spam it up to within an inch of its life.

I'm only pissed because they got here ahead of me.>:C

I'm still confused regarding the second point in this thread.
...

Maybe I can help on the second point.

FE has a problem with gravity. You see if it accepts Newtonian gravity then FE fails to predict the virtual constant measurement of g, allowing for the Earth's rotation, at sea level. (If infinite, then g would be infinite. If finite, then gravity would pull you toward the center, the North Pole.) So to solve the problem, FE creates 'magic dirt' that, in spite of Cavendish's experiment, says the FE doesn't have Newtonian gravitational mass.

Instead FE says that the FE is accelerating up at 1g. Now this can't be either. FE fails to predict the variations in g at different altitudes. Newton's equations are based on the distance between the center of masses involved, decreasing by the inverse square law. So measuring g up on a high mountain gives a lower reading than at sea level than in Death Valley. FE also fails to predict the measured tidal forces of Newtonian gravity as well documented by the Eotvos experiment.

I hope that helps.

So Bushido has it right. The second point destroys FE.

no, I understand the point you were trying to make.
Just that a lot of people have asked that, and either I never saw an answer, or the answer just didn't make it to my brain in time.

I blame The Engineer. Yes, I blatantly blame you.
No reason, really, just it looks cool.

1) Objects near to the surface of the Earth fall when released, while celestial objects, such as the Sun and the Moon remain at the same relative altitude for very long periods of time;

The celestial bodies of the sky are much larger and farther away from the earth than any human contraption. Physics applies differently to objects depending on scale, just as it does between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

2) The current FE model of gravity is not able to successfully explain the variation of the acceleration of free fall at different locations on the Earth and its decrease with altitude.

Your answer is in the FAQ.

I'm still confused regarding the second point in this thread.

Read the FAQ.

Instead FE says that the FE is accelerating up at 1g. Now this can't be either. FE fails to predict the variations in g at different altitudes.

Consult the FAQ.

I have read the FAQ.

But as I have always pointed out (or haven't. SHHH! You don't know who I am!), it isn't possible that one thing has gravity and another thing does not, since the very definition of gravity is that it is a force possessed by anything with mass (or something like that. Don't go too technical on me, I am after all an out of school youth and a bum to boot. Not really though, just saying don't go too technical on me).

Either the FE universe has gravity or not. You can't have the best of both worlds. Which one is it?

Quote

1) Objects near to the surface of the Earth fall when released, while celestial objects, such as the Sun and the Moon remain at the same relative altitude for very long periods of time;

The celestial bodies of the sky are much larger and farther away from the earth than any human contraption. Physics applies differently to objects depending on scale, just as it does between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

And there we have the first attempt at FE Gravity. It doesn't tell much since it uses ambiguous statements (how does it apply to these objects, Mr.Bishop), but it’s a try.