I read all the FAQ, I Searched the Forums and one question has not been asked...

Is there some word we could agree on other than force?  Force implies some sort of energy thing.

Is there some word we could agree on other than force?  Force implies some sort of energy thing.

People could just say gravitation instead of gravity and the problem would be solved.

Okey.  I'm a total non-science type but the whole "gravity" argument is wonderfully disturbing.  So, does gravity have a speed?

Okey.  I'm a total non-science type but the whole "gravity" argument is wonderfully disturbing.  So, does gravity have a speed?

Yes, in GR, gravity travels at the same speed as light. To make the point clear though, it's the "force" that travels at the speed. Rather it's the propagation of the change of the force. So if "God" in an instant removed the Sun, we'd go dark and go straight (rather than around the Sun) at the same time, 8 minutes later.

Reference: Google calculator "1 AU in light minutes".
Reference: Wikipedia

Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum. If you accept FE you must reject GR. If you accept GR, then you must reject FE. So, there's absolutely no reason to debate the nature of gravity here. Please feel comfortable to talk about "earth's gravity" as a force. Even Wikipedia does here.

Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum.

And where does the FE do this? I think the FAQ is absent of the suggestion that it discounts GR.

So, there's absolutely no reason to debate the nature of gravity here.

   Do I need a reason other than curiosity?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 30, 2007, 08:26:13 PM

Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum.

And where does the FE do this? I think the FAQ is absent of the suggestion that it discounts GR.

Look up all the proofs of GR. They all rely on features of RE that cannot be supported by FE. The precession of the orbit of Mercury is predicted by GR only when we use the RE values for the Solar mass and the AU. The GR predicted bending of light from distant stars as seen during a Solar eclipse also requires those values. Other proofs require sustained space flight.

FE directly and inherently rejects one of GR's basic tenets--that all matter bends space-time.

So FE destroys all proofs of GR and rejects a basic tenet. That's discounting.

I've previously posted this argument in more detail with the "tag" of GRiiFER in several threads.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 30, 2007, 08:26:13 PM

So, there's absolutely no reason to debate the nature of gravity here.

   Do I need a reason other than curiosity?

I think you misunderstand me. Please ask any question and challenge any statement you like in understanding gravity. Please don't left some loaf abuse you when you talk about gravity.

I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE.  

If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects?  Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?

I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE. 

If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects?  Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?

For all intents and purposes, I don't care about FE versus RE, but the other aspects are fun.

As for the gravitational attraction, I'm thinking that the effects would be instant. Unless I'm mistaken, only light would take the eight minutes to seemingly vanish.

I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE. 

If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects?  Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?

Gee, maybe it's time for the two of you to find a forum dedicated to a topic about which you're passionate.

Consider a simpler analogy. Imagine a latex sheet stretched tightly over a Olympic-sized, empty swimming pool. In the center is a sphere with the weight of 10Kg, as a analog of the Sun. The sheet will stretch downward from the weight, the same way the Sun stretches space-time in another, unseen dimension. About the first weight a much smaller weight, "Earth"  is moving is a circle about the first. You can imagine, I hope, that the "Earth" follows that curve created by the "Sun".

Imagine now that you reach out and lift the "Sun" off the sheet. The sheet returns to a flat(ter) state slowing starting at the center and working its way out. Earth would in short order, but not instantly, find that the sheet is flat now and go straight.

The Earth always experiences the Sun's gravity based on the mass and position of the Sun 8 minutes ago.

Good questions!

I agree it's fun.  And I should modify my question about the sun's position and add "the sun's position 'relative to the earth's'."

Quote from: Mrs. Bore on July 30, 2007, 08:59:20 PM

I (and I suspect Divito) don't give a hoot in hell about FE vs. RE. 

If mass is bending space/time, why, if the sun were to be suddenly removed, would it take 8 minutes for the earth to experience the effects?  Does the earth experience the sun's gravitational attraction as the sun's position is now or is there an 8 minute delay?

...
As for the gravitational attraction, I'm thinking that the effects would be instant. Unless I'm mistaken, only light would take the eight minutes to seemingly vanish.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. See the Wikipedia link to "Speed of gravity" above.

I wish to modify my "hoot in hell" comment.  I do enjoy all the Flat Earth Defense Team.  I meant the remark only for those who wish to destroy the challenge of the debates that give this forum its spark.

NO FE'ers have replied to my question I dunno how the subject changed cause I said the post everyone is discussing is not from my post but the post below...

Also, since FE discounts all of the proofs of GR, it's precocious to talk about "gravity is not a force" on this Forum.

Then please feel free to stay out of said discussions. 

My bad - response moved.

I stand At the furthest point of the continental US... One the far end far across the Ocean someone stands on the closest continetal Europe/Africa point. We both hold a piece of string at the same height and tightness so the middle would not sag.

This objective experiment has already been conducted and documented by a member of this forum, albeit not with string but with a laser.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9343.msg111765#msg111765

Quote

I stand At the furthest point of the continental US... One the far end far across the Ocean someone stands on the closest continetal Europe/Africa point. We both hold a piece of string at the same height and tightness so the middle would not sag.

This objective experiment has already been conducted and documented by a member of this forum, albeit not with string but with a laser.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9343.msg111765#msg111765

Have you actually read that experiment, Tom?  He actually indirectly agrees in the RE in there...

(3)This is taking into account adjustments made because of a slight, imperceptable(4) breeze that was heading towards the Dun Laoghaire peer.

(4)The breeze was completely impossible to feel but it was obviously there as the fishing line was angling towards Dun Laoghaire peer.

Right there he's saying that there was 'obviously' a breeze towards the other pier because his fishing line was angling that way.  He couldn't feel this breeze, but it had to be present because the world is flat.  If you take away the breeze (that didn't exist) you'll see that the Earth is round.

  midgard was funny.  I wish he still posted here.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 29, 2007, 07:26:46 PM

gravity doesn't exist at fast speeds?

You must have seen all the debate & discussion about the force of gravity being non-existent! Foolishness...

Welcome to the word games based on gravity, gravitation, pseudo-forces and the like. If you want to get a straight answer you are in the wrong forum.

If you ask the people here (with a few exceptions) to illustrate these concepts with a simple experiment that includes a diagram of the forces, accelerations and frames of reference involved you will get absolutely nothing, because that would require actual physics, not cheap rhetoric.

You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. 

You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist as a force. 

Fixed

Ahem.  If you accept GR, then gravity doesn't exist.  Gravitation (which is different) exists.  In GR, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature rather than a force.

Gravity is the name of a force that doesn't exist, therefore gravity doesn't exist.

From Wikipedia:

In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation.

You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. 

I am saying that it goes against all physics to ignore that physics is an experimental science.

If you are not predicting the outcome of a specific experiment or observation or at least working towards that goal you are not talking physics, you are just blabbering. For example, if you are saying gravitational force is a pseudo-force you have to be able to show an experiment where all the forces are accounted for and where forces and acceleration of the objects that form the experimental setup are all there for us to see.

In fact, you will be very hard-pressed to find a single physicist that does not predict the outcome of his experiments and publishes his predictions. Some, like Einstein, left the actual experiments to others but he did the predictions himself.

Quote from: Roundy the Bright on August 02, 2007, 11:04:11 AM

You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. 

I am saying that it goes against all physics to ignore that physics is an experimental science.

If you are not predicting the outcome of a specific experiment or observation or at least working towards that goal you are not talking physics, you are just blabbering. For example, if you are saying gravitational force is a pseudo-force you have to be able to show an experiment where all the forces are accounted for and where forces and acceleration of the objects that form the experimental setup are all there for us to see.

In fact, you will be very hard-pressed to find a single physicist that does not predict the outcome of his experiments and publishes his predictions. Some, like Einstein, left the actual experiments to others but he did the predictions himself.

I don't see what all that has to do with the fact that Einstein demonstrated that gravity doesn't exist.

Ahem.  If you accept GR, then gravity doesn't exist.  Gravitation (which is different) exists.  In GR, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature rather than a force.

Gravity is the name of a force that doesn't exist, therefore gravity doesn't exist.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation.

Gravitation is a definition of gravity.  Gravity is the effect of matter bending spacetime based on its mass.  It is commonly referred to as a force, this is where it is incorrect.

  Well, since the post I put up and the quote therein proved my point, I'm not gonna argue with you.

You guys have to remember that Trig has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.  So instead of doing a little research himself, he just banters on about research, experiments, etc...

Quote from: trig on August 02, 2007, 11:28:14 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Bright on August 02, 2007, 11:04:11 AM

You act like it goes against all physics to say that gravity doesn't exist. 

I am saying that it goes against all physics to ignore that physics is an experimental science.

If you are not predicting the outcome of a specific experiment or observation or at least working towards that goal you are not talking physics, you are just blabbering. For example, if you are saying gravitational force is a pseudo-force you have to be able to show an experiment where all the forces are accounted for and where forces and acceleration of the objects that form the experimental setup are all there for us to see.

In fact, you will be very hard-pressed to find a single physicist that does not predict the outcome of his experiments and publishes his predictions. Some, like Einstein, left the actual experiments to others but he did the predictions himself.

I don't see what all that has to do with the fact that Einstein demonstrated that gravity doesn't exist.

Some definitions that are popular in this forum (and I have not seen in any other place) are used to say that Einstein demonstrated that gravity does not exist. I will not debate the definitions because Physics is not Philosophy and you can always find quotes that say what you like if you get them out of context.

However you splice it, and whatever terminology you use, there is a true force that pulls you into your chair and the planets into orbit, even if the explanation you use masks this fact slightly. If you are following a geodesic into the chair but the chair does not permit this, or whatever, you are exerting a true, real life force against the chair, whether you believe in FE, RE, Einstein, Newton or God.