Problems with FE's "gravity"

Okey, so your idea is that the earth is flying upwards, and that makes it look like we are falling down, but instead it's the earth that is going up?

The problems with this is that we wouldn't "fall", we could fly around - because we have the same speed as the earth.
In a falling airplain, people can try to fly around (because the airplain is already falling with the highest speed it could get from the earth's gravitation) so, it would be the same effect here. If you were right, they would crash into the roof inside the plain, and they don't.

I also think you should try to explain how we can fly around in a falling airplain, if gravity doesn't exist?
I'm talking about this: http://english.people.com.cn/200412/22/images/1221_A91.jpg
How does this fit into the FE world view?

Okey, so your idea is that the earth is flying upwards, and that makes it look like we are falling down, but instead it's the earth that is going up?

The problems with this is that we wouldn't "fall", we could fly around - because we have the same speed as the earth.
In a falling airplain, people can try to fly around (because the airplain is already falling with the highest speed it could get from the earth's gravitation) so, it would be the same effect here. If you were right, they would crash into the roof inside the plain, and they don't.

I also think you should try to explain how we can fly around in a falling airplain, if gravity doesn't exist?
I'm talking about this: http://english.people.com.cn/200412/22/images/1221_A91.jpg
How does this fit into the FE world view?

I encourage you to read the RE Primer on this topic. The FE Theory correctly explains the primary effects of Earth's gravity. It fails to explain secondary effects, such as the variances of 'g' in altitude and latitude and the Cavendish experiment. I suggest that you move your challenges to the secondary effect of gravity.

I'm surprised if it can explain what I said.

Another one:
Double stars clearly indicate that gravity exists. So does gravity bended photoes.

I'm surprised if it can explain what I said.

Another one:
Double stars clearly indicate that gravity exists. So does gravity bended photoes.

It really can. Check it out. We've worked the math for a parachutist for cb. in the 21-page topic: here.

Yep, gravity exists. Only the inane Tom Bishop still says otherwise (though TheEngineer told everyone differently for about a year). FEers, though, are forced by physics to reject that the FE produces gravity.

Okey, so your idea is that the earth is flying upwards, and that makes it look like we are falling down, but instead it's the earth that is going up?

The problems with this is that we wouldn't "fall", we could fly around - because we have the same speed as the earth.
In a falling airplain, people can try to fly around (because the airplain is already falling with the highest speed it could get from the earth's gravitation) so, it would be the same effect here. If you were right, they would crash into the roof inside the plain, and they don't.

The earth is accelerating upwards. When an airplane is in free fall and accelerated to terminal velocity its occupants experience Zero-G because the plane is no longer riding upon the atmosphere. The plane moves downwards at the same rate its occupants fall. The plane and its occupants are completely disconnected from the upwards acceleration of the earth.

I also think you should try to explain how we can fly around in a falling airplain, if gravity doesn't exist?
I'm talking about this: http://english.people.com.cn/200412/22/images/1221_A91.jpg
How does this fit into the FE world view?

See Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent.

Ok, does it talk about it? Can you give me a link?

...

Quote

I also think you should try to explain how we can fly around in a falling airplain, if gravity doesn't exist?
I'm talking about this: http://english.people.com.cn/200412/22/images/1221_A91.jpg
How does this fit into the FE world view?

See Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent.

This is false. The EP does not say that. TomB lies, again.

Tom Bishop:
so you are saying that when a airplain is at free fall, it's accually standing still in the air and then the earth is moving towards the airplain?

It wouldn't work because the airplain already had the same speed as the earth.

Yep, gravity exists. Only the inane Tom Bishop still says otherwise (though TheEngineer told everyone differently for about a year).

Gravity does not exist. 

I don't remember saying otherwise.

It wouldn't work because the airplain already had the same speed as the earth.

The earth is accelerating.

The earth is accelerating.

Keanu Reeves has to keep this planet moving at at least 50 kph or it will a spload.

Quote from: veclock on September 12, 2007, 03:06:25 PM

It wouldn't work because the airplain already had the same speed as the earth.

The earth is accelerating.

But according to you, acceleration is relative.

And?

Ok, does it talk about it? Can you give me a link?

Search for "Equivalence Principle" in Google.

Tom Bishop:
so you are saying that when a airplain is at free fall, it's accually standing still in the air and then the earth is moving towards the airplain?

It wouldn't work because the airplain already had the same speed as the earth.

Look. The earth is not moving upwards at a set speed. It's accelerating upwards.

When the plane stops riding along the atmosphere and goes into freefall, reaching terminal velocity, it is no longer accelerating upwards with the earth. Hence, the plane is disconnected from the atmosphere and the acceleration of the earth. Therefore Zero-G is felt until the plane pulls up again.

It's really funny to see the limited understanding of physics laws of some RE-ers. Obvious for them, SCIENCE is nothing more than a BELIEF (since they cannot understand basic concepts as accelerated movement versus constant speed) regardless of the name they are using it for that.

Quote from: veclock on September 12, 2007, 02:33:25 PM

Ok, does it talk about it? Can you give me a link?

Search for "Equivalence Principle" in Google.

Join him.  Then maybe you can use it right.

Look. The earth is not moving upwards at a set speed. It's accelerating upwards.

When the plane stops riding along the atmosphere and goes into freefall, reaching terminal velocity, it is no longer accelerating upwards with the earth. Hence, the plane is disconnected from the atmosphere and the acceleration of the earth. Therefore Zero-G is felt until the plane pulls up again.

Completely wrong. 

It's really funny to see the limited understanding of phisics laws of some RE-ers. Obvious for them, SCIENCE is nothing more than a BELIEF (since they cannot understand basic concepts as accelerated movement versus constant speed) regardless of the name they are using it for that.

Why don't you use your knowledge of physics and teach Tom the EP. 

And?

You're wrong, again.

Why don't you use your knowledge of physics and teach Tom the EP. 

Ok, for you "college boy"...



PS: Ask for money back from your school (physics classes)...

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 05:57:12 PM

Why don't you use your knowledge of physics and teach Tom the EP. 

Ok, for you "college boy"...



PS: Ask for money back from your school (physics classes)...

How lame can you be? That doesn't explain EP, not even close. You're sad.

Quote from: SoNic on September 12, 2007, 06:20:35 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 05:57:12 PM

Why don't you use your knowledge of physics and teach Tom the EP. 

Ok, for you "college boy"...

Piccard

PS: Ask for money back from your school (physics classes)...

How lame can you be? That doesn't explain EP, not even close. You're sad.

Thats what I was thinking. 

The EP only works for uniform gravitational fields.  The EP does not say "Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent."
Sonic, due try and keep up. 

No word from Tom.  I wounder if he saw his mistake and ran to hide under his parents bed. 

Quote from: Gulliver on September 12, 2007, 06:29:22 PM

Quote from: SoNic on September 12, 2007, 06:20:35 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 05:57:12 PM

Why don't you use your knowledge of physics and teach Tom the EP. 

Ok, for you "college boy"...

Piccard

PS: Ask for money back from your school (physics classes)...

How lame can you be? That doesn't explain EP, not even close. You're sad.

Thats what I was thinking. 

The EP only works for uniform gravitational fields.  The EP does not say "Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent."
Sonic, due try and keep up. 

No word from Tom.  I wounder if he saw his mistake and ran to hide under his parents bed. 

I doubt that he has parents. If he does, I doubt that they have a bed. If they do, I imagine they moved away without telling him.

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 12, 2007, 05:17:29 PM

And?

You're wrong, again.

That is a stunning argument.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 12, 2007, 06:19:13 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 12, 2007, 05:17:29 PM

And?

You're wrong, again.

That is a stunning argument.

I've already made the argument. Yes, it was stunning. I recommend the search function since you seem to have forgotten.

So, when FET says the FE is accelerating at a constant 1g, it's incorrect--according to both SR's rules on FoRs and to an outside observer. What FET should say is that the FE feels like it's accelerating at a constant rate to those on the surface of the FE.

Seems pretty relative to me...

Thats what I was thinking. 
The EP only works for uniform gravitational fields.  The EP does not say "Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent."
Sonic, due try and keep up. 

Really, go back to highscool, that's basic stuff that you are confussed about...
I was talking about the question of this thread - how a plane that stops it's engines is falling towards Earth if is no gravity...
EP is not involved here as far I am concerned because gravitation doesn't exist... on Earth at least.
Try to keep it to the topic:

Okey, so your idea is that the earth is flying upwards, and that makes it look like we are falling down, but instead it's the earth that is going up?

The problems with this is that we wouldn't "fall", we could fly around - because we have the same speed as the earth.
In a falling airplain, people can try to fly around (because the airplain is already falling with the highest speed it could get from the earth's gravitation) so, it would be the same effect here. If you were right, they would crash into the roof inside the plain, and they don't.

I also think you should try to explain how we can fly around in a falling airplain, if gravity doesn't exist?
I'm talking about this: http://english.people.com.cn/200412/22/images/1221_A91.jpg
How does this fit into the FE world view?

Quote from: Gulliver on September 02, 2007, 10:19:18 AM

So, when FET says the FE is accelerating at a constant 1g, it's incorrect--according to both SR's rules on FoRs and to an outside observer. What FET should say is that the FE feels like it's accelerating at a constant rate to those on the surface of the FE.

Seems pretty relative to me...

Gee, I can't help but notice that "relative" doesn't even show up in that quote.

It's clear that in defending that acceleration is relative that you don't understand physics.

Do keep it up though. Sokarul and I are enjoying a great laugh.

Yet, it still seems quite relative...

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 06:36:42 PM

Thats what I was thinking. 
The EP only works for uniform gravitational fields.  The EP does not say "Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent."
Sonic, due try and keep up. 

Really, go back to highscool, that's basic stuff that you are confussed about...
I was talking about the question of this thread - how a plane that stops it's engines is falling towards Earth if is no gravity...
EP is not involved here as far I am concerned because gravitation doesn't exist... on Earth at least.
Try to keep it to the topic:

Quote from: veclock on September 12, 2007, 02:06:41 PM

Okey, so your idea is that the earth is flying upwards, and that makes it look like we are falling down, but instead it's the earth that is going up?

The problems with this is that we wouldn't "fall", we could fly around - because we have the same speed as the earth.
In a falling airplain, people can try to fly around (because the airplain is already falling with the highest speed it could get from the earth's gravitation) so, it would be the same effect here. If you were right, they would crash into the roof inside the plain, and they don't.

I also think you should try to explain how we can fly around in a falling airplain, if gravity doesn't exist?
I'm talking about this: http://english.people.com.cn/200412/22/images/1221_A91.jpg
How does this fit into the FE world view?

Oh dear. Do reconsider your statement about EP not being involved. It's so lame that it's sad.

So, when FET says the FE is accelerating at a constant 1g, it's incorrect--according to both SR's rules on FoRs and to an outside observer. What FET should say is that the FE feels like it's accelerating at a constant rate to those on the surface of the FE.

Hold on a minute. You think feeling isn't relative?