Earth's Acceleration

What force is causing the Earth to constantly accelerate upwards at 1g?

While the exact mechanism is unknown, it has been given the place holder name of Dark Energy or UA.

While the exact mechanism is unknown, it has been given the place holder name of Dark Energy or UA.

I am assuming that the Dark Energy you speak of is different form the Dark Energy scientists know.  Am I incorrect?

If by 'know', you mean purely invented with no evidence, then yes.

If by 'know', you mean purely invented with no evidence, then yes.

The evidence of the traditional Dark Energy is from the knowledge that everything not gravitationally bound to the Earth is accelerating away from it.  Dark Energy is similar to an anti-gravity concept, however much stronger.

There is no evidence of Dark Energy.  It's just something made up to fit the observations.

Thats exactly what science is.  People make observations than make conclusions off of them.  Of course Dark Energy doesn't have any direct physical evidence of it's existence, however humanity does know that there is something forcing these objects to accelerate away from each other.  No one knows what this something, just that it exists.

Could it be that there is no energy causing this, but instead a curvature of spacetime?  Could our 'universe' be sort of like a 'bubble' in spacetime, effecting the geodesic of the galaxies so that they're really 'falling' apart?  I have already admitted that I haven't studied GR in depth, mostly it's whatever I pick up out of curiosity, so I don't have any math to back this up (sorry).  I figured it was worth throwing out there anyway.

Could it be that there is no energy causing this, but instead a curvature of spacetime?  Could our 'universe' be sort of like a 'bubble' in spacetime, effecting the geodesic of the galaxies so that they're really 'falling' apart?  I have already admitted that I haven't studied GR in depth, mostly it's whatever I pick up out of curiosity, so I don't have any math to back this up (sorry).  I figured it was worth throwing out there anyway.

Dark Energy is somewhat of a misleading name.  It implies that is it some type of energy causing this acceleration.  However, it is just a name and it could be the warp of spacetime just as much as it could be a type of energy.  No one knows what it is and the term Energy just seemed like a happy fitting for the name.

Quote from: CommonCents on August 22, 2007, 12:36:56 PM

Could it be that there is no energy causing this, but instead a curvature of spacetime?  Could our 'universe' be sort of like a 'bubble' in spacetime, effecting the geodesic of the galaxies so that they're really 'falling' apart?  I have already admitted that I haven't studied GR in depth, mostly it's whatever I pick up out of curiosity, so I don't have any math to back this up (sorry).  I figured it was worth throwing out there anyway.

Dark Energy is somewhat of a misleading name.  It implies that is it some type of energy causing this acceleration.  However, it is just a name and it could be the warp of spacetime just as much as it could be a type of energy.  No one knows what it is and the term Energy just seemed like a happy fitting for the name.

I still want to know what others think about that theory...mebe I'll get a cookie!

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are both different things. Both are unconfirmed and haven't been found.

http://feeds.wired.com/~r/wired/topheadlines/~3/143697248/DARK_MATTER_HUNT

Dark energy and dark matter are invented concepts to balance mathematical equations to explain observed phenomena. Like all scientific hypotheses, such concepts are used to make predictions hich are then tested by observation. Scientific ideas start out as hypotheses, then after their predictions meet what is observed they become theories.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are both different things. Both are unconfirmed and haven't been found.

http://feeds.wired.com/~r/wired/topheadlines/~3/143697248/DARK_MATTER_HUNT

That doesn't mean they don't exist. It's the same idea to the existence of gravity. 

Thats exactly what science is.  People make observations than make conclusions off of them.  Of course Dark Energy doesn't have any direct physical evidence of it's existence, however humanity does know that there is something forcing these objects to accelerate away from each other.  No one knows what this something, just that it exists.

What he said is the same idea to gravity.  Newton was thinking there must be something pulling the apple down the tree.  GR changed the whole concept of the force of gravity (geometry of space-time, bending of curved space-time, etc) but that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

That doesn't mean they don't exist. It's the same idea to the existence of gravity.

I never said they don't exist. And it's not the same idea. GR already laid gravity to bed. Curvature of spacetime causes gravitation.

GR already laid gravity to bed.

Nope.

This post is going to end up all over the forums because you keep ignoring it. How about you read it this time?

Since I just posted this in another thread, here we go:

"All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, free falling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to show (after ~9 years of work) that gravity is indeed a fictitious force; the apparent acceleration is actually inertial motion in curved spacetime. This is the essential physics of Einstein's theory of general relativity." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

"Is Gravity A Fictitious Force?

...

The strange and in some ways disturbing answer to this supposition is that the phenomenon of gravity (the fact that things fall, and have weight) is real, but the force of gravity, as described by Newton, is not a real force, but a fictitious force." - http://cseligman.com/text/physics/fictitious.htm

"With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force)." - http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=ABE57453-E7F2-99DF-32538FF7C7B37F20

Oh, and let's not forget:

"You have it essentially right

[email protected] wrote:
> user_email -- [email protected]
> question -- I was just looking for some clarification of a few things in regards to gravitation.
>
> GR basically showcases that gravity as a force doesn't exist, correct?
>
> Now, as I understand it, gravity only needs to exist as a force in Euclidean spacetime, and since GR states that spacetime is non-Euclidean, what we feel on Earth is therefore gravitation, and not gravity?
>
>
>
>   

--
******************************************
F. Todd Baker
225 Henderson Ave.
Athens, GA 30602

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 706-546-xxxx
Cell: 706-714-xxxx
Web: http://www.ftoddbaker.com/
******************************************"

Gravity is real. Scientists just detected gravitrons.

Will you FE'ers stop saying gravity isn't real? Your theory demands gravity to exist! And the force powering UA should be named the Conventional Relative Acceleration Constant Kinetic Force, or CRACK Force.

Scientists just detected gravitrons.

I'm detected them at the state fair.

The light of truth is probably one of the first people to have so many posts that have contributed nothing.

Contributed nothing in what sense? If you mean contributed nothing to FE theory then you are right, because I'm not here to contribute to that ... theory. I'm just trying to accertain the full extent of FE science by asking questions, which aren;t really getting answered.

*looks* Holy christ, 95 posts, I need to stop trying....

Now stop poking me.

Will you FE'ers stop saying gravity isn't real? Your theory demands gravity to exist! And the force powering UA should be named the Conventional Relative Acceleration Constant Kinetic Force, or CRACK Force.

Actually, it demands only gravitation to exist.

Will you FE'ers stop saying gravity isn't real? Your theory demands gravity to exist!

What the hell? Care to explain?

And the force powering UA should be named the Conventional Relative Acceleration Constant Kinetic Force, or CRACK Force.

Har-de-har.

Anyway, the source of the UA is a topic which has been comprehensively explored at various SWEFES meetings. Current consensus among the SWEFES points to a dual Big Bang theory explained elsewhere on these forums, though I can't vouch for the views of other FE'ers on here.

Contributed nothing in what sense?

In any sense.

Quote from: Hturtfothgileht on October 16, 2007, 02:22:16 PM

Will you FE'ers stop saying gravity isn't real? Your theory demands gravity to exist!

What the hell? Care to explain?

The motions of the sun, moon planets and stars are descirbed as ORBITS. Orbits are powered by gravity (Or Gravitation, they are virtually the same term and you can't have one without the other.), without gravity there is nothing to keep them moving in a circle, therefore the entire part of the theory regarding motion of stars and planets, sun and moon require gravitation. Yet, you claim UA and no such gravitation.

Waht do the stars and planets orbit around, it can be Earth because they apparently orbit above it, not around it.

The motions of the sun, moon planets and stars are descirbed as ORBITS. Orbits are powered by gravity (Or Gravitation, they are virtually the same term and you can't have one without the other.), without gravity there is nothing to keep them moving in a circle, therefore the entire part of the theory regarding motion of stars and planets, sun and moon require gravitation. Yet, you claim UA and no such gravitation.

Waht do the stars and planets orbit around, it can be Earth because they apparently orbit above it, not around it.

Actually, the motions of the sun and moon are photoelectric cycles. Nothing to do with gravity, which doesn't exist.

gravity (Or Gravitation, they are virtually the same term

They are in no way virtually the same.

Quote from: Hturtfothgileht on October 19, 2007, 03:59:54 AM

The motions of the sun, moon planets and stars are descirbed as ORBITS. Orbits are powered by gravity (Or Gravitation, they are virtually the same term and you can't have one without the other.), without gravity there is nothing to keep them moving in a circle, therefore the entire part of the theory regarding motion of stars and planets, sun and moon require gravitation. Yet, you claim UA and no such gravitation.

Waht do the stars and planets orbit around, it can be Earth because they apparently orbit above it, not around it.

Actually, the motions of the sun and moon are photoelectric cycles. Nothing to do with gravity, which doesn't exist.

Photoelectric cycles? Do you even know what the photoelectric effect is, and why it could not possibly account for the motion of the sun and moon?

Photoelectric cycles? Do you even know what the photoelectric effect is, and why it could not possibly account for the motion of the sun and moon?

There's actually a big thread on this. It's probably one of the few threads I've never read, but I'm assuming you'll find some information in it.