UA vs gravity

Quote from: Raver on July 17, 2010, 06:12:48 PM

Roundy, you are being childish now  . I am wrong because I am wrong and should show myself why I am wrong?

Where do you get that from?  No, you are wrong because you don't understand what you're talking about and should look it up before commenting.  How exactly is that childish?  How is it the least bit unreasonable?

Please when quoting me, quote the whole thing as chances are you might actually read the whole thing then. This would lead to you understanding why it was childish and unreasonable.
(I also consider resorting to insults such as calling me a cheerleader or any of your other unnecessary insults childish)

EDIT:
Just to give an example.

But please, do try.  You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.

A childish remark only meant as an attempt to aggrevate Clocktower.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

More RE propaganda!

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 06:22:27 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:18:03 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 06:15:11 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:14:24 PM

Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.

So points are capable of observation, now?  That's very interesting.  Would you care to back that up?

I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.

Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then.  By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation.  Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

But please, do try.  You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.

Again, I never said that EP is only experienced by a point. Again, the ball in TheJackel's post is not at the point, so it experiences forces that are not governed by the EP when applied to the first point. I've said this to you several times. I would hope by now you can see your error.

You really do make it too easy.

Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.

Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:31:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 06:22:27 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:18:03 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 06:15:11 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:14:24 PM

Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.

So points are capable of observation, now?  That's very interesting.  Would you care to back that up?

I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.

Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then.  By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation.  Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

But please, do try.  You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.

Again, I never said that EP is only experienced by a point. Again, the ball in TheJackel's post is not at the point, so it experiences forces that are not governed by the EP when applied to the first point. I've said this to you several times. I would hope by now you can see your error.

You really do make it too easy.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 05:50:29 PM

Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 05:58:32 PM

Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I? I can describe where a principle applies with 'at' or with 'locally'. How you decided that I said 'by a point' only points to your issues.

Again, TheJackel's point stands. The EP does not apply once observations of the acceleration are made from two points. Now I believe your next move is to declare that stars and their 'gravity' account for the difference, right?

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
[/quote]

1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)

That's the logic you're using.  Again, I love it when you are wrong.  It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:59:38 PM

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?

1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)

That's the logic you're using.  Again, I love it when you are wrong.  It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand. It's a common error. But you really should avoid being arrogant that you understand EP better than someone else when you don't understand where it applies. Remember that UA fails to explain the observed acceleration due to  'gravity' at various location on the Earth because EP applies only locally.

It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

Such an accurate description of yourself, try to add insultive next time though.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:10:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:59:38 PM

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?

1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)

That's the logic you're using.  Again, I love it when you are wrong.  It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.[/quote]

Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP.  I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.

It's a common error. But you really should avoid being arrogant that you understand EP better than someone else when you don't understand where it applies. Remember that UA fails to explain the observed acceleration due to  'gravity' at various location on the Earth because EP applies only locally.

How is that relevant?  How does that change the fact that TheJackel was wrong about each and every one of the statements he made regarding gravity vs UA because he wasn't taking the equivalence principle into account? 

Why do you try to prevent people from learning new things?  The equivalence principle invalidates everything TheJackel argued.  That's all I claimed, and that's all there is to it.  He thinks we don't understand gravity, when it's clear he has no clue about acceleration.  I'm trying to guide people in the right direction here.  You are preventing them from realizing their errors.  As you represent a person trying to help people learn, when you clearly have no interest in doing so, and actually take great pains to prevent their learning anything new (as here), I can only conclude that... you're just a troll.  Am I right?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 07:24:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:10:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:59:38 PM

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?

1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)

That's the logic you're using.  Again, I love it when you are wrong.  It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.

Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP.  I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.

I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA  because of EP.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:39:23 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 07:24:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:10:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:59:38 PM

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?

1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)

That's the logic you're using.  Again, I love it when you are wrong.  It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.

Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP.  I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.

I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA  because of EP.

By all means, back this statement up.

And yet again Roundy has to resort to insults, it remains that Jackel was right and you are graspings for straws (or rather insults) and trying to intimidate people into going along with that which you say. As it stands you are a very obnoxious and childish poster in this thread.

And yet again Roundy has to resort to insults, it remains that Jackel was right and you are graspings for straws (or rather insults) and trying to intimidate people into going along with that which you say. As it stands you are a very obnoxious and childish poster in this thread.

Spare me.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 07:48:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:39:23 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 07:24:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:10:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:59:38 PM

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?

1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)

That's the logic you're using.  Again, I love it when you are wrong.  It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.

Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP.  I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.

I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA  because of EP.

By all means, back this statement up.

Already done.

Quote from: Raver on July 17, 2010, 07:52:00 PM

And yet again Roundy has to resort to insults, it remains that Jackel was right and you are graspings for straws (or rather insults) and trying to intimidate people into going along with that which you say. As it stands you are a very obnoxious and childish poster in this thread.

Spare me.

Really, you are. I am not even saying you are wrong about the EP discussion you are having (I only said you your statement about horizontal G was wrong). Your way of arguing though, even if you are right, is, as said before, childish and rude.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:51:34 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 07:48:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:39:23 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 07:24:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 17, 2010, 07:10:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 17, 2010, 06:59:38 PM

Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?

1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)

That's the logic you're using.  Again, I love it when you are wrong.  It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.

That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.

Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP.  I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.

I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA  because of EP.

By all means, back this statement up.

Already done.

No it wasn't.  But I'll wait.

Hi everyone.

First of all, sorry if I make some mistakes writing, I'm spanish and my english isn't perfect.
Second... It was very hard to me to believe that this site isn't a great joke. Flat Earth? Surrounded by an 'Ice Wall'?

Well, on the subject... You FE'rs say that Earth is constantly accelerating upwards, so, to us, the effect is exactly as with gravity. Well, okay. Then appears the question: why don't we crash into the sun and moon? Ah, okay, the moon, the sun and the other planets are being accelerated in the same way by that misterious "force". Then, if I jump, the Earth will catch me again, and it is as I have fallen into Earth, no?

Well, my question: Why don't this misterious force that affects everything, pushing it upwards, push me also, accelerating me so I'll never fall again? Oh, I know... this "force" only affects everything... that is no over Earth, isn't it?

Please, people, seriously you don't know what a science theory is, don't you? A science theory is a construction that:
1-explains something that has been observed, and,
2-can predict something that can be proved right or false.


You don't have a theory that explains things and predicts observations. You say what is convenient to your beliefs according to what is being discussed. Science doesn't work like that, people.

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but if there is no gravity, then why is it that when you hold a ball above the ground and then let go, it has an initial velocity equal to that of the earth, and then decreases in velocity (aka falls to the ground)? According to physics, the only way that ball should decrease in velocity is if it's acted upon by another force. Normally this is due to surface tension/friction from the surrounding air, however if the air is traveling at the same velocity of the earth, then it should not apply any force on the ball. In addition, how is it that it loses velocity at exactly the same acceleration that the Earth is gaining velocity?

When you let go of a ball it is no longer moving with the earth(as there is nothing transfering the force from the earth accelerating upwards) but instead the earth is moving up to it.

I hope this answered your question