Gravity Model

  • 141 Replies
  • 29473 Views
?

Darren

  • 14
  • +0/-0
Gravity Model
« on: December 10, 2007, 12:25:48 PM »
How can the RE theory of gravity be proven. If the theory that the earth is so dense that it creates this so called "gravitational field", how come there have been no replica models of the earth that have their own gravitational field, surely a sphere dense enough should have its own gravitational field on which maybe sand or other small objects are attracted to, this has never been done and any RE beleivers should attempt to create this model to disprove FE theories.
The FE theory of constant acceleration has been proven, as we all know acceleration produces a force on a mass.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2007, 12:40:12 PM »
Don't really understand you; the same thing happens in both models. Unless you're talking about trying to prove the force of gravity exists or something.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Darren

  • 14
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2007, 01:28:39 PM »
Sorry, I did word it badly. But it is my understanding that the FE theory of "gravity" is due to the constant acceleration of the earth as caused by the big bang in one direction, this is the force in which we experience that keeps us from floating into space, ie "gravity".

However the RE theory of gravity is to do with the beleif that dense objects have some attractive force to them, I pulled this quote from Wikipedia "the strength of this field at any given point is proportional to the planetary body's mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the body", which is basically just stating the density of large objects is what contributes to its so called "gravitational force", and all objects accelerate towards the centre of the earth.

Now out of these two theories, the one that can be proven with ease is the FE theory.

My question was basically about trying to prove the force of gravity exists, and why no one has produced a model to prove that gravity exists. For example, surely a beachball sized object of the same density as the earth should have the same relative attractive force on small objects.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2007, 01:47:41 PM »
"Gravity" is basically just a huge mash-up of globularist pseudoscience. Of course it can't be proven - it isn't real. Round Earthers will throw any number of ridiculous quack buzzwords at you - bending of SpaceTime? Sub-atomic particles? It's a complete lie which can never be proven without bending the rules of proper scientific scrutiny (never mind the bending of space and time).
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Darren

  • 14
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2007, 01:57:25 PM »
Exactly my thoughts, thanks.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2007, 09:58:41 PM »
Can we see that our weight decreases in a 1/r2 behavior as our distance away from the center of the earth increases, yes we can. Can we see how an objects gravitational field can effect rays of light, yes we can. Can we predict the orbital paths of the moon and the other planets using the laws of gravity, yes we can. Should I go on? Now ask yourself can the FE explain and predict any of these factors?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2007, 11:22:12 PM »
Now ask yourself can the FE explain and predict any of these factors?
Yes.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2007, 11:24:39 PM »
Now ask yourself can the FE explain and predict any of these factors?
Yes.
Show me
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2007, 11:26:38 PM »
Bending of light due to acceleration = bending of light due to 'gravity'.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2007, 11:30:58 PM »
Bending of light due to acceleration = bending of light due to 'gravity'.
Theta= Sqrt{(4Gm)/(DC2)}

Now where is the constant acceleration that will yield the same results?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2007, 11:40:52 PM »
Equivalence Principle.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2007, 11:45:22 PM »
Nope, sorry, we are not dealing with a "local" situation. So if you could show how removing gravitation and adding a constant to the equation will accurately predict the amount of deflection for every situation.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2007, 11:48:58 PM »
"The effects of gravitation are indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration." - Albert Einstein

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2007, 11:58:32 PM »
"The effects of gravitation are indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration." - Albert Einstein
Locally. How is the next galaxy over local?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2007, 12:11:18 AM »
Equivalence Principle #1: There are no local experiments which can distinguish non- rotating free fall in a gravitational field from uniform motion in space in the absence of a gravitational field.

Equivalence Principle #2: A frame linearly accelerated relative to an inertial frame in special relativity is locally identical to a frame at rest in a gravitational field.

If you notice a common word in both postulates. I bolded and underlined it for you.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2007, 12:13:20 AM »
"The effects of gravitation are indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration." - Albert Einstein
Locally. How is the next galaxy over local?
Load a man into a rocket accelerating at the rate of 9.8m/s2 in the universe, far away from sources of gravity (no gravity). The man holds a ball and lets it go. Now, what happens to the ball?

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2007, 12:14:32 AM »
"The effects of gravitation are indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration." - Albert Einstein
Locally. How is the next galaxy over local?
Load a man into a rocket accelerating at the rate of 9.8m/s2 in the universe, far away from sources of gravity (no gravity). The man holds a ball and lets it go. Now, what happens to the ball?
You cannot apply a local test to a non local frame
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2007, 04:30:55 AM »
I will have to agree with cbarnett here, I'm not sure acceleration can accurately describe this.
If you canm'd awgue bodh zidz, you u,ndewwzdand nedhew

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2007, 04:37:08 AM »
You cannot apply a local test to a non local frame

Um...if a man is shooting upwards in a rocket with a window and he drops the ball, it still falls. Just because we can observe it doesn't change the locality of it.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2007, 04:50:58 AM »
You cannot apply a local test to a non local frame

Um...if a man is shooting upwards in a rocket with a window and he drops the ball, it still falls. Just because we can observe it doesn't change the locality of it.

But it is not falling from the context of the bigger picture, just moving slower than the floor in the rocket. Besides, light is kind of different from a ball...  ;)
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2007, 08:43:16 AM »
If you notice a common word in both postulates. I bolded and underlined it for you.
The only reason local is in the EP is because the only way to tell the difference between 'gravity' and acceleration is due to tidal effects.  Since tidal effects are unimportant in this situation, it applies non locally.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2007, 11:19:09 AM »
So what is causing the acceleration around massive bodies?
If you canm'd awgue bodh zidz, you u,ndewwzdand nedhew

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2007, 12:49:56 PM »
So what is causing the acceleration around massive bodies?
Gravitation.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2007, 05:21:08 PM »
So what is causing the acceleration around massive bodies?
Gravitation.
how does the FE account for the acceleration around massive bodies?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2007, 05:21:42 PM »


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2007, 05:25:45 PM »
Bending of light due to acceleration = bending of light due to 'gravity'.
Arguing a FE explaination
So what is causing the acceleration around massive bodies?
Gravitation.
Now arguing the RE explaination.... Interesting
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2007, 05:26:31 PM »
If you notice a common word in both postulates. I bolded and underlined it for you.
The only reason local is in the EP is because the only way to tell the difference between 'gravity' and acceleration is due to tidal effects.  Since tidal effects are unimportant in this situation, it applies non locally.
No, but nice try
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2007, 05:29:08 PM »
You cannot apply a local test to a non local frame

Um...if a man is shooting upwards in a rocket with a window and he drops the ball, it still falls. Just because we can observe it doesn't change the locality of it.

But it is not falling from the context of the bigger picture, just moving slower than the floor in the rocket. Besides, light is kind of different from a ball...  ;)

Doesn't change anything that barnett is trying to apply to make himself right.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2007, 05:38:29 PM »
You cannot apply a local test to a non local frame

Um...if a man is shooting upwards in a rocket with a window and he drops the ball, it still falls. Just because we can observe it doesn't change the locality of it.

But it is not falling from the context of the bigger picture, just moving slower than the floor in the rocket. Besides, light is kind of different from a ball...  ;)

Doesn't change anything that barnett is trying to apply to make himself right.
Well If I am wrong then I guess Einstein was as well
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity Model
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2007, 05:54:26 PM »
Well If I am wrong then I guess Einstein was as well

What was he wrong about?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good