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

  • 397 Replies
  • 117052 Views
?

EricTheRed

  • 106
  • +0/-0
  • Cogito et sum
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?
No.  GR allows you to accelerate forever, without reaching the speed of light, you just get closer to it.  You don't even need GR, Special Relativity (a simpler part of GR) will do it.  The reason is that space is not Euclidean, rigid bodies shrink when in relative motion and clocks tick more slowly.  Read any book on relativity for the explanation.

BTW, Einstein in one sense believed in gravity - of course he knew things fall down, have orbits etc - he just explained it away as being really just acceleration relative to a  curved spacetime which gives the illusion of gravity.  In the same way as explaining away centrifugal force as really being acceleration towards the centre. 
When we say an astronaut is feeling 'g'(ravitational) forces as she accelerates, it is exactly that: GR says you cannot distinguish between acceleration and gravity.  They are the same thing, and all gravity is, is acceleration.  Any popular science book on general relativity will explain this in more detail.  For recent ones I recommend Brian Greene "The Elegant Universe" of "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
"Subtle is the Lord" Albert Einstein

What then, makes things (with mass) bend space-time hmm?
Plato: People are inherently bad.
Aristotle: People are inherently good.
Me: People are inherently stupid.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3792
  • +0/-0
  • We are as one.
What then, makes things (with mass) bend space-time hmm?

Answer that question correctly and with observational backing and you get a Nobel prize and instant superstar status.  Truth is, we don't know, for we can only speculate.

A FE-er calling me stupid? please.

Yes, because intelligence is often associated with beliefs.  This is why Fred Phelps is as intelligent and logical as Einstein.

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?

Your question is too vague, or else obviously flawed - you shouldn't be able to get two masses on Earth to attract each other (with gravity alone), because the Earth's "gravitational field" cancels out the miniscule force between the two objects (For GTR, Earth bends spacetime in such a way that smaller masses barely contribute and can be seen as negligible).

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

Just like how insulators should be affected by electricity the same way conductors are affected?  Some chemicals blow up when placed in water - does this mean that all chemicals blow up when placed in water?  Gravity could be a selective "force".  You need to acknowledge that we know little about gravity and we're just making up shit to fit the observations.

"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."

R_uv - (1/2) * g_uv * R = (8 * Pi * G/c^4) * T_uv , in other words.

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.

Or "matter tells spacetime how to bend, and spacetime tells matter how to behave," as depicted in the above equation.

?

EricTheRed

  • 106
  • +0/-0
  • Cogito et sum
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.
Or more specifically, Einstein said that just as centrifugal force is really an illusion due to the observer being in a non-inertial frame (accelerating towards the centre), so gravity is an illusion due to the observer being in a noninertial frame (accelerating relative to the local inertial frames in curved spacetime).  The acceleration is felt as pressure from beneath from the Earth pushing us up, just as an accelerating spacecraft or elevator causes the illusion of gravity.
"Subtle is the Lord" Albert Einstein

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
"Your question is too vague, or else obviously flawed - you shouldn't be able to get two masses on Earth to attract each other (with gravity alone), because the Earth's "gravitational field" cancels out the miniscule force between the two objects (For GTR, Earth bends spacetime in such a way that smaller masses barely contribute and can be seen as negligible)."

Hey, I am getting a little confussed. Now FE-ers believe the earth has a gravitational Field? This is not the impression i got from the FAQ.

Also there is an experiment that shows two masses attracting each other by their gravitational force. I believe the canvendish's torsion balance demonstrats this.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Lets say you agree with this, it still all comes down to the fact that the earth has a gravitational field, or what we can interperet as a gravitational field. Basically things that have a mass attract each other. Right?

Which would mean that the earth and the sun and the moon are accelerating towards the earth, assuming they also have gravity which you state they do in your FAQ.

In this case, we are all clearly going to die, or should be dead already because the moon and the sun are going to crash into the earth. Because of this attraction. An intelligent FE-er could you explain please.


Penis

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
errr.... right.

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?


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

Yes, it is.

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
Funny lah you.... but i can't help think that FE-ers are refusing to answer my question......

Silence says 1000 words in some cases... In this case it is telling me that FE-ers physics is fundimentally wrong.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Are you saying that Einstein believed in gravity as a force?


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

Yes, it is.
Gravity is a fictitious force.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Basically things that have a mass attract each other. Right?

But what about things without mass?

Quote
In this case, we are all clearly going to die, or should be dead already because the moon and the sun are going to crash into the earth. Because of this attraction. An intelligent FE-er could you explain please.
The sun/moon/earth can be modeled by a second order, underdamped, differential equation, whose solution would lead to harmonics that would have died out billions of years ago.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3792
  • +0/-0
  • We are as one.
"Your question is too vague, or else obviously flawed - you shouldn't be able to get two masses on Earth to attract each other (with gravity alone), because the Earth's "gravitational field" cancels out the miniscule force between the two objects (For GTR, Earth bends spacetime in such a way that smaller masses barely contribute and can be seen as negligible)."

Hey, I am getting a little confussed. Now FE-ers believe the earth has a gravitational Field? This is not the impression i got from the FAQ.

No - in FE, the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards.  I was using RE in the above explanation.  Stop mixing your models.

This thread shall never die. : ;D
Plato: People are inherently bad.
Aristotle: People are inherently good.
Me: People are inherently stupid.

?

astronomy101

  • 297
  • +0/-0
This thread shall never die. : ;D

gravity = acceleration
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
You guys do know to say gravity=acceleration, you would also be saying the moon and the Earth would have the same gravity right?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6863
  • +0/-0
I'd just like to know what causes the oceans to accelerate towards the moon.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • +0/-0
  • The Reverse Engineer
You guys do know to say gravity=acceleration, you would also be saying the moon and the Earth would have the same gravity right?

Why is that, and how do you know whether or not they do? 

?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6863
  • +0/-0
Well when astronauts landed there they experienced a lower acceleration than when they walked on Earth.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Well if the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s and we never lose the moon, so it to would be going at 9.8m/s/s. Thus having a gravity of 9.8m/s/s.  
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

I'd just like to know what causes the oceans to accelerate towards the moon.

This effect was created with a machine made by the government, we dont know the location of this machine however it is most likely hidden in the icewall.

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
I'd just like to know what causes the oceans to accelerate towards the moon.

This effect was created with a machine made by the government, we dont know the location of this machine however it is most likely hidden in the icewall.

LOL



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


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

Yes, it is.
Gravity is a fictitious force.


But at the end of the day there is an effect due to this fictious force that forces things with a mass to attract each other. Why is it you are refusing to accept this fact? is it because it disagrees with your model??

Basically things that have a mass attract each other. Right?

But what about things without mass?

Quote
In this case, we are all clearly going to die, or should be dead already because the moon and the sun are going to crash into the earth. Because of this attraction. An intelligent FE-er could you explain please.
The sun/moon/earth can be modeled by a second order, underdamped, differential equation, whose solution would lead to harmonics that would have died out billions of years ago.

Tell me on object without a mass.

underdamped differential equation?? whose solution would lead to harmonics? HOW?
Please stop making this way more complicated than it needs to be, basically, if the earth has a gravitational field the earth will collide with the sun and the moon.

I thought all we were desputing now is whether the earth has gravity.?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.

But at the end of the day there is an effect due to this fictious force that forces things with a mass to attract each other. Why is it you are refusing to accept this fact? is it because it disagrees with your model??
There is no force.  That is why I said it was a fictious force.  Gravity as a force does not exist.

Tell me on object without a mass.
A photon.


Quote
underdamped differential equation?? whose solution would lead to harmonics? HOW?
That's what happens to second order, under damped, differential equations.

Quote
Please stop making this way more complicated than it needs to be, basically, if the earth has a gravitational field the earth will collide with the sun and the moon.
Exactly.  Which can be modeled by that 2nd order ODE.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
So you dont have an answer for my question?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
So you dont have an answer for my question?
What was it?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
You guys do know to say gravity=acceleration, you would also be saying the moon and the Earth would have the same gravity right?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Gravity=acceleration doesn't mean what you think it means, apparently.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Yeah apparently not.  Apparently the moon has more acceleration yet never accelerates away from the Earth.  Please explain how the moon has less gravity then the Earth. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Why would the moon accelerate faster than the earth?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Its not accelerating faster.  So by what you say its gravity is 9.8m/s/s.  Which is wrong, it has less gravity then the Earth.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Its not accelerating faster. 
Quote
Apparently the moon has more acceleration yet never accelerates away from the Earth.
It seems to me like that's what you are saying.

Quote
So by what you say its gravity is 9.8m/s/s.  Which is wrong, it has less gravity then the Earth.
It can't have less 'gravity' than the earth, as the earth doesn't have any.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson