FE tides

Perhaps he is, although in this case the point stands.

Sorry if i confused you atm, i created multiples for the sake of the topic, often they are ruined by trolls, and people who are trying simply to mess things up. my apologies

Although a nice idea, I suggest you don't. Trolls can easily be flamed off, and multiple topics is both annoying for people who have to answer both but confusng for people like me, who are idiots.

once again man... my bad

Don't worry about it.

Just reference please an experiment that proved the gravity and gravitation aren't the same thing.

General Relativity did a pretty good job of that.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 19, 2007, 10:46:15 AM

Just reference please an experiment that proved the gravity and gravitation aren't the same thing.

General Relativity did a pretty good job of that.

Nope. Remember the APJ article?

Engineer,
Do you subscribe to the Flat Earth theory?

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 19, 2007, 03:36:46 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on June 19, 2007, 10:46:15 AM

Just reference please an experiment that proved the gravity and gravitation aren't the same thing.

General Relativity did a pretty good job of that.

Nope. Remember the APJ article?

I do.  What about it?

General Relativity did a pretty good job of that.

Nope. Remember the APJ article?
[/quote]
I do.  What about it?
[/quote]Do you remember that EP was invalidated? Are you basing your claim on the EP? Can you answer the challenge of providing an experiment that supports your claim?

The EP has nothing to do with my claim.  Try again.

The EP has nothing to do with my claim.  Try again.

You try. What experiment? (Third time I've asked.)

For those that know a little something about physics, they know that there is a rather large difference between gravity and gravitation.  Gravity specifically refers to a force.  Gravitation is what causes objects to accelerate towards each other, a la General Relativity.  But, of course, if you don't subscribe to General Relativity, well, believe whatever you want.

For those that know a little something about physics, they know that there is a rather large difference between gravity and gravitation.  Gravity specifically refers to a force.  Gravitation is what causes objects to accelerate towards each other, a la General Relativity.  But, of course, if you don't subscribe to General Relativity, well, believe whatever you want.

So no experiment still?

For those that know a little something about physics, they know that there is a rather large difference between gravity and gravitation.  Gravity specifically refers to a force.  Gravitation is what causes objects to accelerate towards each other, a la General Relativity.  But, of course, if you don't subscribe to General Relativity, well, believe whatever you want.

Gulliver the above statement from The Engineer is correct,
Trouble is that GR does demand that ALL mass will attract that includes the Earth, so, if the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s relative to us we would feel twice the "weight" (assuming that the Earths mass is the same in FE theory)

Quote from: The Engineer on June 19, 2007, 04:15:12 PM

For those that know a little something about physics, they know that there is a rather large difference between gravity and gravitation.  Gravity specifically refers to a force.  Gravitation is what causes objects to accelerate towards each other, a la General Relativity.  But, of course, if you don't subscribe to General Relativity, well, believe whatever you want.

Gulliver the above statement from The Engineer is correct,
Trouble is that GR does demand that ALL mass will attract that includes the Earth, so, if the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s relative to us we would feel twice the "weight" (assuming that the Earths mass is the same in FE theory)

I thank you for the kind words, but I'll stick by my position. I've quoted Paul M. Brown on Einstein's opinion that gravity curves spacetime. I don't believe that this forum is the place to debate our understanding of gravity to that degree. We don't have a single experiment that allows us to dismiss gravity--yet. We have Einstein keeping gravity. We shouldn't leave anyone with the impression that gravity is "gone". Oh and remember, TheEngineer is on record as saying that "every acceleration is gravitation."

I thank you for the kind words, but I'll stick by my position. I've quoted Paul M. Brown on Einstein's opinion that gravity curves spacetime. I don't believe that this forum is the place to debate our understanding of gravity to that degree. We don't have a single experiment that allows us to dismiss gravity--yet. We have Einstein keeping gravity. We shouldn't leave anyone with the impression that gravity is "gone". Oh and remember, TheEngineer is on record as saying that "every acceleration is gravitation."
[/quote]

Hey Gulliver,
I am a lot more comfortable with "mass and energy curves spacetime" personally.
 "every acceleration is gravitation." mmm an odd statement?

Riles.

Acceleration is not gravitation. They are 2 different things. When did he say that?

Acceleration is not gravitation. They are 2 different things. When did he say that?

Most recently:

Perhaps you just can't read.  Here it is again:

Gravitation is acceleration.

Most blatantly:

Quote from: self on March 08, 2007, 10:51:33 AM

Quote from: astronomy101 on March 05, 2007, 12:28:24 PM

Quote from: kasroa on March 05, 2007, 12:27:09 PM

So the big bang happens and stars form. How did all the material accumulate together to form the big rocky mass that is Earth? Or did it magically form a flat disk then lose all it's gravity. Too much magic, not enough science. FE fails again.

Acceleration = gravity

soooo wrong

acceleration is a constant increase in speed

motion is a causation of gravity but neither ARE gravity

Gravity and acceleration are equal.  Gravity is an acceleration, and every acceleration is gravity.

And this is the real Engy? Boom goes his credibility I guess. I mean obviously gravity is a cause of some acceleration, but so is me throwing a ball.

And this is the real Engy? Boom goes his credibility I guess. I mean obviously gravity is a cause of some acceleration, but so is me throwing a ball.

I get your point Skeptical. Like when your driving in your car(could be anything). Me acellerating in a car isn't gravity or gravitation. Also when humans move that's the best phase of acceleration cuz we acclerate to a lot of speeds. Also that work of motion is my muscles and acceleration not gravity or gravitation.

Quote from: Skeptical ATM on June 20, 2007, 07:21:38 AM

And this is the real Engy? Boom goes his credibility I guess. I mean obviously gravity is a cause of some acceleration, but so is me throwing a ball.

I get your point Skeptical. Like when your driving in your car(could be anything). Me acellerating in a car isn't gravity or gravitation. Also when humans move that's the best phase of acceleration cuz we acclerate to a lot of speeds. Also that work of motion is my muscles and acceleration not gravity or gravitation.

Imagine that you're (not your!) in a car with blackened windows and you can’t even hear the sound of the engine. Now, imagine that the car is undergoing a constant acceleration of 5.7 m/s² (which would mean that the car accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds). For all you know it, this would be as if you’re moving with constant speed down an inclined plane with an angle to the horizontal equal to:

Arctan (5.7/9.8 ) = 30°

, but that the acceleration of free fall is: √(5.7²+9.8²) = 11.3 m/s². How can you prove that the above described situation is not the real deal?

Quote from: Jasra18088 on June 20, 2007, 07:53:21 AM

Quote from: Skeptical ATM on June 20, 2007, 07:21:38 AM

And this is the real Engy? Boom goes his credibility I guess. I mean obviously gravity is a cause of some acceleration, but so is me throwing a ball.

I get your point Skeptical. Like when your driving in your car(could be anything). Me acellerating in a car isn't gravity or gravitation. Also when humans move that's the best phase of acceleration cuz we acclerate to a lot of speeds. Also that work of motion is my muscles and acceleration not gravity or gravitation.

Imagine that you're (not your!) in a car with blackened windows and you can’t even hear the sound of the engine. Now, imagine that the car is undergoing a constant acceleration of 5.7 m/s² (which would mean that the car accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds). For all you know it, this would be as if you’re moving with constant speed down an inclined plane with an angle to the horizontal equal to:

Arctan (5.7/9.8 ) = 30°

, but that the acceleration of free fall is: √(5.72+9.82) = 11.3 m/s². How can you prove that the above described situation is not the real deal?

Ok Bushido. Now I understand what you say. I go with your point. But you have to have an inclined plane for that. What if it's a completely straight road would you move? No. You would have to have a motor or something to push it because gravity wouldn't be able to take place.

Quote from: Bushido on June 20, 2007, 08:05:21 AM

Quote from: Jasra18088 on June 20, 2007, 07:53:21 AM

Quote from: Skeptical ATM on June 20, 2007, 07:21:38 AM

And this is the real Engy? Boom goes his credibility I guess. I mean obviously gravity is a cause of some acceleration, but so is me throwing a ball.

I get your point Skeptical. Like when your driving in your car(could be anything). Me acellerating in a car isn't gravity or gravitation. Also when humans move that's the best phase of acceleration cuz we acclerate to a lot of speeds. Also that work of motion is my muscles and acceleration not gravity or gravitation.

Imagine that you're (not your!) in a car with blackened windows and you can’t even hear the sound of the engine. Now, imagine that the car is undergoing a constant acceleration of 5.7 m/s² (which would mean that the car accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds). For all you know it, this would be as if you’re moving with constant speed down an inclined plane with an angle to the horizontal equal to:

Arctan (5.7/9.8 ) = 30°

, but that the acceleration of free fall is: √(5.72+9.82) = 11.3 m/s². How can you prove that the above described situation is not the real deal?

Ok Bushido. Now I understand what you say. I go with your point. But you have to have an inclined plane for that. What if it's a completely straight road would you move? No. You would have to have a motor or something to push it because gravity wouldn't be able to take place.

No, no, no. You're accelerating on a straight road, but it looks the same as if you were on driving with a constant speed down an inclined plane.

EDIT:

Correction. Not down, but up the inclination! 

Quote from: Jasra18088 on June 20, 2007, 08:10:20 AM

Quote from: Bushido on June 20, 2007, 08:05:21 AM

Quote from: Jasra18088 on June 20, 2007, 07:53:21 AM

Quote from: Skeptical ATM on June 20, 2007, 07:21:38 AM

And this is the real Engy? Boom goes his credibility I guess. I mean obviously gravity is a cause of some acceleration, but so is me throwing a ball.

I get your point Skeptical. Like when your driving in your car(could be anything). Me acellerating in a car isn't gravity or gravitation. Also when humans move that's the best phase of acceleration cuz we acclerate to a lot of speeds. Also that work of motion is my muscles and acceleration not gravity or gravitation.

Imagine that you're (not your!) in a car with blackened windows and you can’t even hear the sound of the engine. Now, imagine that the car is undergoing a constant acceleration of 5.7 m/s² (which would mean that the car accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds). For all you know it, this would be as if you’re moving with constant speed down an inclined plane with an angle to the horizontal equal to:

Arctan (5.7/9.8 ) = 30°

, but that the acceleration of free fall is: √(5.72+9.82) = 11.3 m/s². How can you prove that the above described situation is not the real deal?

Ok Bushido. Now I understand what you say. I go with your point. But you have to have an inclined plane for that. What if it's a completely straight road would you move? No. You would have to have a motor or something to push it because gravity wouldn't be able to take place.

No, no, no. You're accelerating on a straight road, but it looks the same as if you were on driving with a constant speed down an inclined plane.

EDIT:

Correction. Not down, but up the inclination! 

Annd that's where you lost me. Sorry. 

You wouldn't know it wasn't gravity doing it, no. But why would you assume that it was? Simply because it MAY be gravity doesn't mean that it IS gravity. There are a number of other ways to move a tinted, soundproof car.

I hate to break it to everyone, but gravitation is acceleration.  Like I've said before, if you don't subscribe to General Relativity, believe whatever you want.

I hate to break it to everyone, but gravitation is acceleration.  Like I've said before, if you don't subscribe to General Relativity, believe whatever you want.

Then why did you say

For those that know a little something about physics, they know that there is a rather large difference between gravity and gravitation.  Gravity specifically refers to a force.  Gravitation is what causes objects to accelerate towards each other, a la General Relativity.  But, of course, if you don't subscribe to General Relativity, well, believe whatever you want.

You wouldn't know it wasn't gravity doing it, no. But why would you assume that it was? Simply because it MAY be gravity doesn't mean that it IS gravity. There are a number of other ways to move a tinted, soundproof car.

You don't need that explanation for a car, because you have seen cars traveling on earth all the time. But, when you’re in a more unfamiliar environment, it tells you that you can’t trust your previous experience as you’re unable to tell if the system is accelerating or if there’s a gravitational field present. This is the essence of the Principle of Equivalence (And Gulliver, don’t show up with that APJ article, because, quite frankly you’re beginning to look like Tom Bishop with Earth: Not a Globe)

Engy, how exactly is all acceleration gravitation? I am familiar with General Relativity, and I believe in it. But it does not state anywhere that all acceleration is gravitation, and I am unable to come up with how you could arrive at that conclusion. Please explain.

EDIT Bushido, you still can't assume that it must be gravity. It may be but it may not be. That's true of any example.