Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.

Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.

If it were concave that might have the desired effect.

Quote from: kasroa on March 03, 2007, 03:37:32 PM

The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.

Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.

If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is more dense on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 03:42:05 PM

Quote from: kasroa on March 03, 2007, 03:37:32 PM

The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.

Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.

If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is thicker on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.

I don't quite follow.  From the hub of the Earth, you would feel vertical pull because everything would be symmetric.
From closer to the rim, facing Hubwards, you would feel vertical pull because the backwards pull of the closer part of the wall would offset the pull from the greater area in front of you.  It would take careful arrangement of the mass, but that just happens automatically because of the rotation of the Earth around the hub: centrifugal force effect.

Quote from: Geoff on March 03, 2007, 03:48:14 PM

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 03:42:05 PM

Quote from: kasroa on March 03, 2007, 03:37:32 PM

The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.

Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.

If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is thicker on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.

I don't quite follow.  From the hub of the Earth, you would feel vertical pull because everything would be symmetric.
From closer to the rim, facing Hubwards, you would feel vertical pull because the backwards pull of the closer part of the wall would offset the pull from the greater area in front of you.  It would take careful arrangement of the mass, but that just happens automatically because of the rotation of the Earth around the hub: centrifugal force effect.

If you were standing at the edge of the earth everything would be hubward of you, and thus you would be pulled toward the center.

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 03:59:15 PM

Quote from: Geoff on March 03, 2007, 03:48:14 PM

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 03:42:05 PM

Quote from: kasroa on March 03, 2007, 03:37:32 PM

The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.

Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.

If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is thicker on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.

I don't quite follow.  From the hub of the Earth, you would feel vertical pull because everything would be symmetric.
From closer to the rim, facing Hubwards, you would feel vertical pull because the backwards pull of the closer part of the wall would offset the pull from the greater area in front of you.  It would take careful arrangement of the mass, but that just happens automatically because of the rotation of the Earth around the hub: centrifugal force effect.

If you were standing at the edge of the earth everything would be hubward of you, and thus you would be pulled toward the center.

Yes, though not by a huge amount.  But I don't think anyone has stood on the edge of the Earth and done the experiment; do you?

In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out?  Or is the ground always too rough to tell?  If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.

In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out?  Or is the ground always too rough to tell?  If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.

You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.

 

BAN him, hes a Heritic of Satans !!!
Lets KILL HIIIMMMMMMMM

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 04:30:24 PM

In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out?  Or is the ground always too rough to tell?  If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.

You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.

Not if it was dense enough at the edge.

Quote from: Geoff on March 03, 2007, 04:35:38 PM

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 04:30:24 PM

In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out?  Or is the ground always too rough to tell?  If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.

You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.

Not if it was dense enough at the edge.

I'm pretty sure you would still be pulled toward the earth's center of gravity, and there is also the problem that it isn't made of exponentially more dense material.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on March 03, 2007, 12:46:09 AM

Quote from: lucky on March 03, 2007, 12:16:53 AM

Sorry you are contridicting the laws of physics.

Sorry, but you are showing your lack of understanding of Relativity.  Once you know Relativity, come back and see me.

Relativity? i suppose you have a degree in it.

I've taken a course for it.

Would you be so kind to point out where i have clearly gone wrong?

Well, here:

So, if a photon of light has a momentum it must have a mass.

"Regardless of light having a mass or not. How can the earth not have a mass? Because that is what FE-ers are saying when they say the earth has no gravitational pull."

Well, you see, it is assumed (in the RE model) that all mass has gravity, but it can't be proven.  Why?  The properties of the hypothetical messenger particle for gravity (the graviton) are unkown, for it is a hypothetical particle.  Meaning, we believe it exists, but we're not entirely sure.

In FE, we merely replace gravity on Earth for a constantly-accelerating reference frame.  Had you known General Relativity, you would have known that this does not violate the laws of physics, and is acceptable.

So the earth has no gravity what so ever and the force we feel is just it accelerating upwards?

Well despite the uncertainty of the "graviton particle" is that just one theory? There are many more proposed such as gravity waves, and most are not generally accepted in modern physics because we have not put together the uniform field theory that links magnetic and gravitational fields?

Despite the "graviton" existing at all. Which you are right, has not yet been proven. We can still see the earth has gravity not acceleration by observation.

Such as the Cavendish's torsion balance which takes two masses and measures the gravitational attraction between them, generated by their mass. Although it is small it can be measured accurately. And if the earth is made up of masses that can be shown to have a gravitational attraction between them, it is only logical to come to the conclusion that the earth has gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment









btw, was the course in general relativity taught by an FE-er?

Gravity does not exist as a force.

Gravity does not exist as a force.

And your proof for this is where?

I mean that is what defines gravity, a force between two masses.

Gravity is a psudoforce.  Well, I read that that's what some guy at a patent office many years ago believed.

I am not formiliar with the term "psudoforce" so i checked the definition and found nothing. So assuming you ment psedi force i found this:

pseudo force
n.
The physically apparent but nonexistent force needed by an observer in a noninertial frame to make Newton's laws of motion hold true. The centrifugal force is a pseudo force. Also called fictitious force.

right? this explains how grivity does not exist how?

Because the patent clerk said so.

Because the patent clerk said so.

forgive me if i am misunderstanding something but are you trying to tell me einstien does not believe in gravity?

Yep.

wow, i think we just hit an all time low here

Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?

yea he said it himself

I will admit that made me chuckle.  Too bad he didn't say that.

hahahahah funny man

to be honest, i really cannot say because i dont know the guys history or his studies, nor do i know him personally.. so i remain open minded on what he believes

Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?

IF gravity is not a force what is it then? a word?

A FE-er calling me stupid? please.

Lets take it down a step. I can't help but feel you are refusing to answer the obvious. How is it that i can get masses on the earth and show that they have a gravitational pull?

Would this not mean the earth has a gravitational pull, seeing as it is made up of these masses?

Well answer that in plain english, instead of getting all side tracked.

k.thx.bb.



ow and btw i found this:


"Einstein's theory is exactly analogous to this. In Newton's theory, gravity makes particles leave their straight paths. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is a distortion of space-time. Particles still follow the straightest possible paths in that space-time. But because space-time is now distorted, even on those straightest paths, particles accelerate as if they were under the influence of what Newton called the gravitational force."

but at the end of the day, to put it in plain english, masses attract each other no matter how you want to explain it.

btw, taking into account general relativity:

Fundamental principles
General relativity is based on the following set of fundamental principles which guided its development.[2][6] These principles are:

The general principle of relativity: The laws of physics must be the same for all observers (accelerated or not).


so is this not saying we can't be accelerating upwards forever because we will reach the speed of light? no matter how we look at it?