The Almighty Sun

How can you argue that gravity is not acceleration when they both have the same units ffs?

Somebody somewhere came up with this "acceleration is gravitation" or "gravitation is acceleration" junk and now every amateur physicist in the forum decided that it is true!

The 'somebody' who came up with "acceleration is gravitation" was Albert Einstein.

According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle, what you know as acceleration is really a gravitational field that bends space-time. When you accelerate a hammer to pound a nail into a piece of wood, the hammer is creating a gravitational field as it accelerates through space, however minuscule. Therefore, different levels of acceleration would create different levels of gravitation.

For the exact mathematics on Einstein's Principle of Equivalence see this paper on the subject: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf

"However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is exactly equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is a rather difficult idea to accept."

Dr Samuel Birley Rowbotham has this to say on the matter of the Sun's movements:

"If it is asked why it traverses such a peculiarly concentric path, no practical answer can be given, and no theory or speculation can be tolerated. At no distant period perhaps, we may have collected sufficient matter-of-fact evidence to enable us to understand it; but until that occurs, the Zetetic process only permits us to say:--"The peculiar motion is visible to us, but, of the cause, at present we are ignorant."

Unlike the dreamers tucked away in dusty offices that invent our modern science, Dr Rowbotham admits that there was at the time little that a true zetetic could do to explain the Sun's motion. My theory is that the Sun is being affected by the UA force which keeps it accelerating just as the Earth is. The reason we on Earth don't feel this force is that the Earth 'shields' us from the UA, preventing it acting on us. This shield extends upwards and thins, like this diagram of the RE Earth's magnetosphere:



Until, at the Sun's altitude, it virtually disappears.

It is also not so unlikely that fluctuations in the UA cause the sun to trace the strange path that Dr Rowbotham describes after studying the Sun for nearly twenty-five years.

TomB, you must have forgot to switch logonids before posting. You're the only one to call Rowbotham "Dr.". You're the only one to embrace "zetetic". You're the only one we've seen offer up unrelated RE drawings as evidence of FE. You're really making our case quite strong that you're a religious zealot.

Quote

Somebody somewhere came up with this "acceleration is gravitation" or "gravitation is acceleration" junk and now every amateur physicist in the forum decided that it is true!

The 'somebody' who came up with "acceleration is gravitation" was Albert Einstein.

According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle, what you know as acceleration is really a gravitational field that bends space-time. When you accelerate a hammer to pound a nail into a piece of wood, the hammer is creating a gravitational field as it accelerates through space, however minuscule. Therefore, different levels of acceleration would create different levels of gravitation.

For the exact mathematics on Einstein's Principle of Equivalence see this paper on the subject: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf

"However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is exactly equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is a rather difficult idea to accept."

What evidence do you bring to the table for GR, given a FE?

How can you argue that gravity is not acceleration when they both have the same units ffs?

Definitions? Okay!

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects attract each other.
Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity.

How can you get them mixed up?

How can you get them mixed up?

Are you saying that you are smarter than Albert Einstein?

Quote

How can you get them mixed up?

Are you saying that you are smarter than Albert Einstein?

Since you say the Earth is Flat and since Albert Einstein relied on the Earth as round, are you saying that you're smarter than Albert Einstein?

Quote

How can you get them mixed up?

Are you saying that you are smarter than Albert Einstein?

ALBERT EINSTEIN SAID THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATION FROM THOSE OF GRAVITATION.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME.

ALBERT EINSTEIN SAID THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATION FROM THOSE OF GRAVITATION.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME.

Actually, Albert Einstein said that acceleration and gravitation were exactly the same phenomena. Acceleration is gravitation, and gravitation is acceleration. Both use the same units in physics, and both behave exactly alike.

I encourage you to read up on the subject. Here is a good source:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf

"However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is exactly equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is a rather difficult idea to accept."

The word is tenets, Tom.  I suggest you fix it before you copy/paste the same thing again.

Very good Tom! You can read! Now read closer....

A uniform gravitational field is exactly equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.

Fact 1: The UA implies that the Earth is a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.

Fact 2: The Round Earth's gravitational field is not uniform.

Conclusion: The two models are not equivalent.

Edit: Fact 3: The gravitational field on Earth has been measured as non-uniform.

Conclusion 2: The UA is false (notice how I do not say the RE is true, as this alone is not evidence to suggest that).

Fact 3: The gravitational field on Earth has been measured as non-uniform.

Consult the FAQ for an explanation.

Oh Tom, you know I've read it. You know that the Sun's 'gravitation' which you call upon (thereby bringing all the problems and mysteries of mass bending spacetime into FE) is niether sufficient to have an effect nor sufficient to explain why g is always like that at high altitude and at the equator.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2007, 12:03:44 PM

Quote

How can you get them mixed up?

Are you saying that you are smarter than Albert Einstein?

Since you say the Earth is Flat and since Albert Einstein relied on the Earth as round, are you saying that you're smarter than Albert Einstein?

TomB, you owe us an answer to this question!

Oh Tom, you know I've read it. You know that the Sun's 'gravitation' which you call upon (thereby bringing all the problems and mysteries of mass bending spacetime into FE) is niether sufficient to have an effect nor sufficient to explain why g is always like that at high altitude and at the equator.

The FAQ does not attribute the different levels of g to the sun. Read it again.

TomB, you owe us an answer to this question!

Einstein never said said anything about the shape of the earth.

Quote

Fact 3: The gravitational field on Earth has been measured as non-uniform.

Consult the FAQ for an explanation.

Goddammit, just copy and paste it like the rest of your arguments.  He has no idea what in the FAQ you're talking about.

Quote

Jesus was good, right?

Consult St. Lucifer's Bible for an explanation.

And Tom, we're not going to trust you're FAQ over mounds of true scientific evidence.

Tom Bishop has been able to answer any concern ever introduced about FE, to my knowledge. With this amount of easily attained evidence, examples and proofs only an RE'er would continue to be ignorant of the shape of our earth.

An example of a typical thread:
RE: What about phenomena x
Tom: it is explained by y
RE: No, it isnt
Tom: yes it is, and here is why
(pause for extra garbage in thread)
RE: (ignores topic and Toms evidence) I demand an answer about x!!!

Yeah, that's how it goes. 

Goddammit, just copy and paste it like the rest of your arguments.  He has no idea what in the FAQ you're talking about.

If Gin claims to have read the FAQ, then he should know why there are different levels of g at different altitudes. I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Flat Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about FET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

And Tom, we're not going to trust you're FAQ over mounds of true scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence tells us the mechanism for 'gravity'?

Quote

Goddammit, just copy and paste it like the rest of your arguments.  He has no idea what in the FAQ you're talking about.

If Gin claims to have read the FAQ, then he should know why there are different levels of g at different altitudes. I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Flat Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about FET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

Quote

And Tom, we're not going to trust you're FAQ over mounds of true scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence tells us the mechanism for 'gravity'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Round Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about RET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

Narcberry: What shape is the bottom of your shoe?
REers: Oh God not again....

Tom has so far not explained anything with any amount of scientific rigour. Not one thing!
This part:

Tom: it is explained by y
RE: No, it isnt
Tom: yes it is, and here is why

is where Tom gives a very poor and sketchy explanation that may or may not have been disproved already, and expects us to go 'OK, that's fine then'. FET is not a scientific theory, so Tom cannot give scientific answers.

Tom:

What scientific evidence tells us the mechanism for 'gravity'?

I don't know, but it's as much FET's problem as anyone else's, you just invoked gravitation by mass in your argument!

I have read the FAQ, and it states that the sun and moon may have a slight gravitational pull on the Earth. This is unfeasible as an explanation for the differences in g, as they are neither massive enough to have a significant gravity nor close enough for there to be a difference between high and low altitudes.

I don't believe in the graviton, I prefer Einsteins thoery of warped spacetime

Cue Tom's response:

"Since you are such an expert, please explain the mechanism..."

He might as well explain it himself, as his own theory relies on gravitation by mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Round Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about RET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

The graviton is hypothetical.

It is an undiscovered, unsubstantiated, unproven subatomic particle. There is zero evidence for the existence of the graviton. There is zero evidence for the existence of gravity. Additionally, there are major problems with the existence of the graviton which forum poster Narcberry sums up in a previous post:

"If a subatomic particle is responsible for gravity, I can show you my major problem with that. Lets say the world is round and all celestial bodies orbit each other due to a force called gravity. Well the earth and sun send gravitons back and forth that will cause a certain amount of attraction towards one another dependent on the quantity of gravitons and in what direction they came from or what message they might contain.

Heres my problem: There is a potential energy in the sun and earth due to their distance. Meaning that they have the energy to fall to each other and collide with massive energy. Now if a graviton exists, what if something interferes with its path or message? What if the sun is told to be attracted to the earth in a different direction? That would violate the whole principals of Newtonian physics. It would mean, by creating gravitons, you could create energy from nothing.

This is due to the fact that the idea of gravitons implies that the sun has the ability to accelerate itself in any direction. All it is doing is waiting to find out what vector of acceleration to apply. This is inconsistent with many theories. The force of attraction on the sun, must be a direct cause of the earth and visa versa.

Additionally, gravity is a pulling force. In physics, a very basic lesson is there is no such thing as a pulling force, only a pushing one. These can be complicated, so as to seem like a pulling force when it is actually a series of pushing ones. This makes me inclined to believe in gravity (and magnetic and electric) forces that are a series of pushing ones. But that is off topic. If you want to know more I will explain elsewhere."

So I ask again, what evidence is there demonstrating the mechanism for gravity?

I don't believe in the graviton, I prefer Einsteins thoery of warped spacetime

Choose what you like.  I haven't studied it enough to pick one.

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Round Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about RET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

The graviton is hypothetical.

It is an undiscovered, unsubstantiated, unproven subatomic particle. There is zero evidence for the existence of the graviton. There is zero evidence for the existence of gravity. Additionally, there are major problems with the existence of the graviton which forum poster Narcberry sums up in a previous post:

"If a subatomic particle is responsible for gravity, I can show you my major problem with that. Lets say the world is round and all celestial bodies orbit each other due to a force called gravity. Well the earth and sun send gravitons back and forth that will cause a certain amount of attraction towards one another dependent on the quantity of gravitons and in what direction they came from or what message they might contain.

Heres my problem: There is a potential energy in the sun and earth due to their distance. Meaning that they have the energy to fall to each other and collide with massive energy. Now if a graviton exists, what if something interferes with its path or message? What if the sun is told to be attracted to the earth in a different direction? That would violate the whole principals of Newtonian physics. It would mean, by creating gravitons, you could create energy from nothing.

This is due to the fact that the idea of gravitons implies that the sun has the ability to accelerate itself in any direction. All it is doing is waiting to find out what vector of acceleration to apply. This is inconsistent with many theories. The force of attraction on the sun, must be a direct cause of the earth and visa versa.

Additionally, gravity is a pulling force. In physics, a very basic lesson is there is no such thing as a pulling force, only a pushing one. These can be complicated, so as to seem like a pulling force when it is actually a series of pushing ones. This makes me inclined to believe in gravity (and magnetic and electric) forces that are a series of pushing ones. But that is off topic. If you want to know more I will explain elsewhere."

And what evidence is there for the UA?  Or the conspiracy, for that matter?  At least on my side we have a well-developed theory.   You want to talk about evidence?  What's yours?

It's like he read my post and though "Yeah I'll do that!" then did it. Here are some other things that are hypothetical:

The UA is hypothetical

The spotlight sun is hypothetical

The ice wall is hypothetical

The shadow object is hypothetical

Are we done? Your own Flat Earth theory relies on the same gravitational mechanisms as RE, just in a limited context. YOU explain how masses attract each other in YOUR theory.

And what evidence is there for the UA?

Lift a pen into the air and release it from your grip. Do you see acceleration?

Alternatively, you can look into the night sky and observe the cosmos accelerating away from itself.

Or the conspiracy, for that matter?

For proof of the Conspiracy simply ask a government official what the shape of the earth is.

At least on my side we have a well-developed theory.

It's not very well developed if you don't even know the mechanism for gravity, is it?

It's not very well developed if you don't even know the mechanism for gravity, is it?

You do not know the mechanism for gravitation by mass in your theory, neither do you know what causes the supposed UA.

Lift a pen into the air and release it from your grip. Do you see acceleration?

This is not evidence for the UA, it is evidence for a gravitational field of some kind, but it could be created by the Earth's mass.

Quote

Since you say the Earth is Flat and since Albert Einstein relied on the Earth as round, are you saying that you're smarter than Albert Einstein?...TomB, you owe us an answer to this question!

Einstein never said said anything about the shape of the earth.

BUZZ!! Wrong, again, TomB. Here's one quick reference: The Special and General Relativity, p. 17: "Now in virtue of its motion round the sun, the earth is comparable to a railway carriage travelling with a velocity of about 30 kilometres per second."