Accellerating Earth

gravity is a force, force is a vector. Combining two vectors produces a resultant vector.

i'll use the example you mentioned about the stars.

The line you would move along is the resultant vector from both stars pulling you towards them, assuming the gravitational pull is equal for both stars.

Read a physics textbook, it might clear a few things up.

Gravity would pull all the mass towards the centre of the earth, areas of varying altitude would experience this force differently.

If there was some force accelerating the earth upwards, the force experienced would be unchanging, no matter where you stood. this is clearly not the case

gravity is a force, force is a vector. Combining two vectors produces a resultant vector.

Sure sure, I know how addition works, thanks.  My point is that the pull of gravity is not always towards a mass.

The pull that I experience in my spacesuit in the binary star scenario is unquestionably a force (and therefore a vector), and it is unquestionably gravity, and it is unquestionably not towards any mass.

If there was some force accelerating the earth upwards, the force experienced would be unchanging, no matter where you stood. this is clearly not the case

Clearly?  It's not clear to me.  Like I said, I've never noticed this change you describe.

There you go again. I'm not talking about an obviously fucking huge change, like being able to jump 100 feet in the air in parts of France, and only 10cm in Japan.

Its a subtle, MEASURABLE change of around 10% depending on your location. You can't feel it with your feet.

Imagine this: You're in a swimming pool, approximately 30cm below the surface. You then sink to approximately 1m below the surface. You don't feel any change in pressure, but it exists.

There you go again. I'm not talking about an obviously fucking huge change, like being able to jump 100 feet in the air in parts of France, and only 10cm in Japan.

Its a subtle, MEASURABLE change of around 10% depending on your location

10%? WTF?

For there to be a 10% change in gravity, your altitude would have to be about 5% of the Earth's radius, or about 300 kilometers. Have you ever been to 300 kilometers above the earth's surface? That's well into the thermosphere, and above the operational altitude of Spaceshipone.

The change in gravity due to elevation between mount everest and the dead sea, respectively the highest and lowest points on earth, is about .03%. Perhaps you brought a super-accurate scale with you on your climb of K2?

Quote from: "Seriously"

There you go again. I'm not talking about an obviously fucking huge change, like being able to jump 100 feet in the air in parts of France, and only 10cm in Japan.

Its a subtle, MEASURABLE change of around 10% depending on your location

10%? WTF?

For there to be a 10% change in gravity, your altitude would have to be about 5% of the Earth's radius, or about 300 kilometers. Have you ever been to 300 kilometers above the earth's surface? That's well into the thermosphere, and above the operational altitude of Spaceshipone.

The change in gravity due to elevation between mount everest and the dead sea, respectively the highest and lowest points on earth, is about .03%. Perhaps you brought a super-accurate scale with you on your climb of K2?

He didn't take precise measurement of those cases, he was just making a point.

Sheesh.

He didn't take precise measurement of those cases, he was just making a point.

Sheesh.

The point he was trying to make was that you can easily measure the difference between the strength of gravity at different elevations. He said that this difference was more than 300 times bigger than it really is. If he can't prove that gravity varies by elevation (and it doesn't look like he can) then he can't use it as an argument.

Perhaps you brought a super-accurate scale with you on your climb of K2?

God knows I never forget mine.  I keep it in my Camelbak, right next to my spare oxygen bottles, just in case.

Ok, 10% was an exagerration, but my point still stands.

The change in gravity with altitude can, and HAS BEEN MEASURED. Buy a book on Newton's laws of gravity. And no, Newton was not part of a massive government conspiracy.

The change in gravity with altitude can, and HAS BEEN MEASURED.

Not by me, and, unless you care to claim otherwise, not by you.

Buy a book on Newton's laws of gravity. And no, Newton was not part of a massive government conspiracy.

Newton climbed to the top of K2?

Notice that I have not once suggested or even implied that Newton climbed K2.

Also notice this worrying tendancy to make connections where there are none. Such tendancies do not bode well for your Flat-Earth Hypothesis

Edit: Since Erasmus appears to dispute the fact that gravity changes with altitude. I'll post this snippit I found IN THE FAQ no less.

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

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

Therefore, at least one Flat-earther disagrees with you.

Also, spot the error in the answer.

If the stars/moon have a gravitational "pull" gravity would increase with altitude. Which is not the case. I urge you to look it up if you don't believe me, rather than dumping the same old "prove it" argument you so painstakingly avoid yourselves.

Notice that I have not once suggested or even implied that Newton climbed K2.

If he didn't, then how are his views relevant?  We are discussing the purported measurements of the differences in the strength of gravity at sea level and the top of K2.  I don't see how Newton could possibly be germane to such a discussion unless he had climbed to the top of K2.

Also notice this worrying tendancy to make connections where there are none. Such tendancies do not bode well for your Flat-Earth Hypothesis

Also notice this worrying tendency to bring up irrelevancies and then admit that there is no connection to the question under consideration.  Such tendencies do not bode well for your Round-Earth Hypothesis.

I did not mention anything about measuring gravity at the top of K2. I simply said that gravity decreases with altitude. Read it again. I also did not make any connection whatsoever between Newton and K2. Read it again.

Your intrinsic ability to only see what you want to see is a detriment to your perceived intelligence.

I did not mention anything about measuring gravity at the top of K2. I simply said that gravity decreases with altitude.

So, do you admit that gravity has not been measured to decrease with altitude, but rather, only predicted to do so by scientists applying Newton's laws?

No. Newton predicted a change in gravity with altitude.
Experiments have confirmed this prediction.

I fail to see why this confuses you.

Experiments have confirmed this prediction.

Which experiments?  Did you do them?  I didn't.

So because you haven't seen or done something, that means nobody has?

That's pretty much what your question implies. That, and sheer ignorance.

So because you haven't seen or done something, that means nobody has?

No, and no, my question "Did you see/do it?" doesn't imply that.  A question, really, doesn't imply anything.  It just asks for something.  Something that, in this case, you seem unwilling to give.

It seems unfair that FEers should have to provide evidence for their claims when REers won't.

So why stoop to our level?

saying "I'm not doing it because you won't" is cowardly and childish.

So why stoop to our level?

A very good question.  I apologize.  Please see the "Questions about Tides" thread for evidence.

I promise never to stoop to your level again, but of course, I cannot ask that you make the same promise.