Questions regarding "universal acceleration"

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

When I jump up, I land back on the ground.

Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.

You say it does.  I say it doesn't.  I don't want to spend my time going "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" with you, but am genuinely interested in data supporting your/FE'ers theories.

Didn't I just give a simple experiment you could do at your computer?

Quote from: "psouza4"

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

When I jump up, I land back on the ground.

Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.

You say it does.  I say it doesn't.  I don't want to spend my time going "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" with you, but am genuinely interested in data supporting your/FE'ers theories.

Didn't I just give a simple experiment you could do at your computer?

Yes you did.  And didn't I just prove beyond a doubt that the experiment's findings are inconclusive because they do not prove that any one possibility was more favorable than the other?  And furthermore, did you not just agree that the findings are inconclusive based on the idea that neither RE/gravity nor TE/velocity could be locally distinguishable?

So having again established that the simple experiment proved to show no data that explicitly supports TE/velocity, I'm asking... again... for someone to provide some.  Thank you.

Quote from: "psouza4"

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

When I jump up, I land back on the ground.

Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.

You say it does.  I say it doesn't.  I don't want to spend my time going "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" with you, but am genuinely interested in data supporting your/FE'ers theories.

Didn't I just give a simple experiment you could do at your computer?

I think most contributors to this thread are looking for a more robust and thoughtful explanation than what you are providing.  Your reasoning works assuming your original assertions are indeed axiomatic, but the problem is you're starting out with a false, or at least extremely unscientific, basis.

I'd like to jump in for a moment here. If the entire Earth is accelerating, then we would be accelerating at the same exact speed. If I dropped an apple, it wouldn't crash down into the earth, it would float around for a little bit before dropping. Its like if you're on a train and you jump. You don't go splat into the back of the train because you're moving at the same speed as the train, you move along with the train.

I'd like to jump in for a moment here. If the entire Earth is accelerating, then we would be accelerating at the same exact speed. If I dropped an apple, it wouldn't crash down into the earth, it would float around for a little bit before dropping. Its like if you're on a train and you jump. You don't go splat into the back of the train because you're moving at the same speed as the train, you move along with the train.

That's if there was no acceleration, only velocity.  EG if you're on a subway, when its first starting up and accelerating, you are indeed pushed back.  But once you're the same velocity as the train, it's no longer accelerating, you can jump up, and you're traveling forward at the same speed as the train, thats why you dont splat up in the back.

Oh, you're right. My physics lessons have failed me. I'm leaving this place it's giving me a headache. See ya back at krap.

OK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR

Ok so if you are using newtons laws to prove your own theory you must believe they are right.  My first point is that Newton himself believed in gravity....remember the apple?

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is not one of his Laws of Motion.  One can accept the latter but refuse the former.

Newton himself was not happy with the notion of a universal gravitational force as it implied "action at a distance".

So, I think the answer to the original question is as follows:

If Universal Graviation is correct then objects far from the centre of the Earth should be attracted less strongly to the centre of the Earth than objects near the centre.  On a round Earth this is not a problem since for the most part all objects are about the same distance from the centre.

On a thin flat Earth, however, rimward objects are much farther from the centre than hubwards objects, so the weights of things should drop drastically as they move rimwards.

However, the weights of objects do not drop drastically as they move rimwards, so either universal gravity is false, or the Earth is round.

So, if you believe the EArth is flat then universal gravity must be wrong.

So, I think the answer to the original question is as follows:

If Universal Graviation is correct then objects far from the centre of the Earth should be attracted less strongly to the centre of the Earth than objects near the centre.  On a round Earth this is not a problem since for the most part all objects are about the same distance from the centre.

On a thin flat Earth, however, rimward objects are much farther from the centre than hubwards objects, so the weights of things should drop drastically as they move rimwards.

However, the weights of objects do not drop drastically as they move rimwards, so either universal gravity is false, or the Earth is round.

So, if you believe the EArth is flat then universal gravity must be wrong.

Well, that was the purpose of my questions, why the FE theory doesn't seem to make sense when taking into account gravity.  If you were at the edge of the "disc", so to speak, a plumb bob would hang not straight down, but at an angle towards the center of the disc Earth, since most of the mass is there.  This obviously doesn't happen.

So, as you say, we're presented with the choice, either 1) Pick traditional gravity with a sphere Earth or 2) Pick no gravity with a Flat Earth.  When presented with those two choices, if we do not let our bias guide us and rely strictly on observation and the scientific method, (and common sense), we see, from such experiments as Maskelynes, that we can show situations where gravity, and not an accelerating Earth, explain observed phenomena.  

It's one thing to quest for the truth, it's another to ignore the obvious.

you disagree with newtons gravity, but how about Einsteins?


he showed that light could be bent by gravity and it was shown by one of the planets passing infront of the sun (i beleive it was venus)


considering ya'll consider them to be spot lights n'all - how does that happen in your nice little flat cozy world?

quick question relating to this:

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

if the moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull, why doesn't the earth?

you disagree with newtons gravity, but how about Einsteins?

I think Einstein was a fine chap. It was his theories on relativity that specified the reality of acceleration without reference, or any change in coordinate velocity.

I believe he was also the one who claimed acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.

Quote from: "DrQuak"

you disagree with newtons gravity, but how about Einsteins?

I think Einstein was a fine chap. It was his theories on relativity that specified the reality of acceleration without reference, or any change in coordinate velocity.

Not to contradict your knowledge of Einstein, but I think you're mistaken.  The theory you're refering to in general relativity is that of geodesic motion, in which objects move along curvature in spacetime.  However, geodesic deviation requires the use of two geodesics via  a Riemann curvature tensor, which still means that you're filling two indices with a respective geodesic, you can't just have one, you need to compare it to something.  Not to mention, the curvature of spacetime is a physical aspect of the universe itself - not outside the universe.  To indicate the universe itself is moving along a spacetime curvature would indicate there is some larger super-universe that contains our universe as a subset.  

This all sounds silly and nonscientific because the idea of the entire universe accelerating doesn't logically make any sense - the idea of gravity is a little more plausible (and required for the geodesic motion you support) than an "accelerating" universe in reference to nothing.

That sounds like something Erasmus would say, so it must be right! This is why I'm an EE/CpE, by the way, and not a physics major.

But we agree that, in GR, you can be experiencing acceleration without a change in coordinate velocity, right?

if the moon and the stars have a slight gravitational pull, why doesn't the earth?

Obviously, the Earth must have some preferred place in the universe.

Either that, or, since we're already throwing out universal gravitation, maybe it just has a neutral gravitational "charge" the way neutrons have a neutral electrical charge.  This would imply that it's made of different stuff from the stars and planets.

But we agree that, in GR, you can be experiencing acceleration without a change in coordinate velocity, right?

What exactly do you mean by a change in coordinate velocity?

I think that you can diverge from / converge to some other object at an increasing rate while still being in an inertial reference frame -- that's gravity in GR.  It looks like you're accelerating relative to that object.

Also, it's clear that being "at rest" on the surface of the Earth is not an inertial reference frame in GR, since if you were in a state of inertial motion you would be continuing in freefall.  Thus you feel "gravity" on a round Earth because the round Earth is accelerating upwards (i.e. away from the centre).