Clarification on Gravity

  • 1275 Replies
  • 257195 Views
*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #660 on: September 19, 2008, 09:48:37 AM »
Free-fall FOR are accelerating and are still inertial.

Which is why they are only accelerating if you look at them in a non-inertial coordinate system. But then, any object can be said to be accelerating if one creates a non-inertial coordinate system around it. The only absolute measure of acceleration is whether one is following the shortest possible path through spacetime, more commonly referred to as a geodesic. If one is doing so, then one is not accelerating; otherwise, one is accelerating because something is causing one to deviate from that natural path.
Please look up free-fall again. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #661 on: September 19, 2008, 09:51:19 AM »
Please look up free-fall again. 

I know what free-fall is. It does not make sense, in a model where spacetime is curved and simultaneity is relative, to speak of acceleration in absolute terms, except in terms of inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #662 on: September 19, 2008, 09:53:04 AM »
Please look up free-fall again. 

I know what free-fall is. It does not make sense, in a model where spacetime is curved and simultaneity is relative, to speak of acceleration in absolute terms, except in terms of inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.
Free-fall is inertial and accelerating.  If you have a problem with this talk to Einstein. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #663 on: September 19, 2008, 09:56:33 AM »
Free-fall is inertial and accelerating.  If you have a problem with this talk to Einstein. 

Accelerating relative to what? Again:

It does not make sense, in a model where spacetime is curved and simultaneity is relative, to speak of acceleration in absolute terms, except in terms of inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #664 on: September 19, 2008, 10:00:04 AM »
Free-fall is inertial and accelerating.  If you have a problem with this talk to Einstein. 

Accelerating relative to what? Again:
Another inertial FOR with constant velocity.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #665 on: September 19, 2008, 10:01:35 AM »
Another inertial FOR with constant velocity.

Of course. But that inertial frame of reference itself is accelerating relative to the object in question, and so cannot be used as an absolute reference point.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #666 on: September 19, 2008, 01:34:35 PM »
Another inertial FOR with constant velocity.

Of course. But that inertial frame of reference itself is accelerating relative to the object in question, and so cannot be used as an absolute reference point.

Then why do you use it as one? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #667 on: September 19, 2008, 07:48:13 PM »
I sometimes think sokarul and cbarnett97 are the same person.  Neither will admit their failings, no matter how many people point them out.


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

?

Pope Zera

  • 329
  • A Firm Believer in NOTHING
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #668 on: September 19, 2008, 07:55:06 PM »


Exceeding the speed limit can result in fines of up to $400 and ceasing to exist.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #669 on: September 20, 2008, 08:24:51 AM »
Then why do you use it as one? 

At this point it may be beneficial to imagine that A and B begin in a distant orbit around the black hole, before a small impulse is applied to A who is then allowed to free-fall towards the event horizon, otherwise Osama's wording of the initial conditions can introduce confusion...
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #670 on: September 21, 2008, 04:13:34 AM »
I still want to know how he plans to use Atomic Clocks to prove the surface of the earth isn't accelerating.
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #671 on: September 21, 2008, 04:26:17 AM »
Actually, I just thought of something. To prevent the sure to come noob rant on physics revisionism, please note that this view of gravity is undisputed and held by RE'ees and FE'ers alike, as this is relativity.

This is Special Relativity. General Relativity does not exclude gravity as a force to my knowledge.

I could be wrong. If I am please explain how.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #672 on: September 21, 2008, 08:09:00 AM »
General Relativity does not exclude gravity as a force to my knowledge.

GR says gravitation is inertially following geodesics of curved space-time.  No force required.  A force of gravity was only required when space was thought to be "absolute" as in Newtonian physics.  Newton had two types of motion, inertial motion in a straight line with no force, and curved motion in absolute space with a force applied.  Einstein theorized only one motion, that being geodesic motion in curved space-time.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #673 on: September 22, 2008, 09:46:47 AM »
Then why do you use it as one? 

At this point it may be beneficial to imagine that A and B begin in a distant orbit around the black hole, before a small impulse is applied to A who is then allowed to free-fall towards the event horizon, otherwise Osama's wording of the initial conditions can introduce confusion...
My answer is still correct. 

Another inertial FOR with constant velocity.

Of course. But that inertial frame of reference itself is accelerating relative to the object in question, and so cannot be used as an absolute reference point.

Then why do you use it as one? 

I'm still waiting for an answer. You said an accelerating FOR cannot be used, yet you use one to make the claim the claim the earth's surface is accelerating. 

I sometimes think sokarul and cbarnett97 are the same person.  Neither will admit their failings, no matter how many people point them out.

Quote
gravitation=acceleration

I'm not the one that's wrong.

I still want to know how he plans to use Atomic Clocks to prove the surface of the earth isn't accelerating.

Not talking about the current topic but acceleration in general, atomic clocks are used to show time dilation.  Did you look up the twin paradox and the answer? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #674 on: September 22, 2008, 09:49:02 AM »
I'm still waiting for an answer. You said an accelerating FOR cannot be used, yet you use one to make the claim the claim the earth's surface is accelerating.

Back, are you? My, those were a peaceful two days.

Anyway, I didn't.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #675 on: September 22, 2008, 09:52:04 AM »
I'm still waiting for an answer. You said an accelerating FOR cannot be used, yet you use one to make the claim the claim the earth's surface is accelerating.

Back, are you? My, those were a peaceful two days.

Anyway, I didn't.

You most certainly did. 
You took the FOR of freefall and then claimed the earth was accelerating up, even though a freefall FOR is clearly accelerating. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #676 on: September 22, 2008, 09:52:16 AM »
Not talking about the current topic but acceleration in general, atomic clocks are used to show time dilation.  Did you look up the twin paradox and the answer? 

Isn't the twins paradox normally resolved by assuming the Earth is an inertial frame? I'm not sure I've seen a solution which treats the Earth as a rotating, massive body in a gravitationally bound system...
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #677 on: September 22, 2008, 09:54:03 AM »
You most certainly did. 
You took the FOR of freefall and then claimed the earth was accelerating up, even though a freefall FOR is clearly accelerating. 

A freefalling frame of reference is only accelerating relative to non-inertial and other inertial frames of reference. No frame of reference can be said to be the absolute measure of zero acceleration. Therefore, the only way in which it makes sense to speak of acceleration in absolute terms is whether or not the observer is inertial. If they are not, they are accelerating.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #678 on: September 22, 2008, 10:00:32 AM »
You most certainly did. 
You took the FOR of freefall and then claimed the earth was accelerating up, even though a freefall FOR is clearly accelerating. 

A freefalling frame of reference is only accelerating relative to non-inertial and other inertial frames of reference. No frame of reference can be said to be the absolute measure of zero acceleration. Therefore, the only way in which it makes sense to speak of acceleration in absolute terms is whether or not the observer is inertial. If they are not, they are accelerating.

The definition of a free-fall FOR states it is accelerating.

An object can be both inertial and accelerating.  Understand?     

No matter what you claim, objects accelerate towards the earth.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #679 on: September 22, 2008, 10:02:52 AM »
An object can be both inertial and accelerating.

Yay, something to post in the Top Ten Lists thread!
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #680 on: September 22, 2008, 10:05:03 AM »
An object can be both inertial and accelerating.

Yay, something to post in the Top Ten Lists thread!
I suggest you research the Equivalence Principle before you make yourself look like an idiot. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #681 on: September 22, 2008, 10:05:33 AM »
Sok's fail just never stops entertaining me.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #682 on: September 22, 2008, 10:06:51 AM »
Sok's fail just never stops entertaining me.
I suggest you research the Equivalence Principle before you make yourself look like an idiot. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #683 on: September 22, 2008, 10:07:32 AM »
Apparently Sokarul is the only member on FES who understands the Equivalence Principle. ::)
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #684 on: September 22, 2008, 10:09:47 AM »
Apparently Sokarul is the only member on FES who understands the Equivalence Principle. ::)

I already knew this. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #685 on: September 22, 2008, 10:10:37 AM »
Everything in relativity is exactly that - relative. Any problem has to be laid out in the format of observer and object under consideration.  If the observer is free-falling, he is justifiably 'at rest' in a relativistic sense, since the only thing all observers can agree on is "Does anyone have their jetpack switched on right now?".  It doesn't matter if that 'jetpack' is just that, or whether it's contact acceleration from the ground, or an asteroid hitting you in the face.  Let's assume the Earth is made of glass and cannot be seen by eye - someone standing on the ground is accelerating upwards, as seen by someone free-falling above them.

Likewise, to the person on the ground the free-faller appears to be accelerating downwards towards them - the difference is that when the two look at their accelerometers the free-faller reads zero, and the guy on the ground measures an upwards acceleration of g. Consequently we can conclude that, in any meaningful definition of acceleration, the person on the ground is accelerating, whereas the person free-falling towards the ground is not.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #686 on: September 22, 2008, 10:12:56 AM »
Everything in relativity is exactly that - relative. Any problem has to be laid out in the format of observer and object under consideration.  If the observer is free-falling, he is justifiably 'at rest' in a relativistic sense, since the only thing all observers can agree on is "Does anyone have their jetpack switched on right now?".  It doesn't matter if that 'jetpack' is just that, or whether it's contact acceleration from the ground, or an asteroid hitting you in the face.  Let's assume the Earth is made of glass and cannot be seen by eye - someone standing on the ground is accelerating upwards, as seen by someone free-falling above them.

Likewise, to the person on the ground the free-faller appears to be accelerating downwards towards them - the difference is that when the two look at their accelerometers the free-faller reads zero, and the guy on the ground measures an upwards acceleration of g. Consequently we can conclude that, in any meaningful definition of acceleration, the person on the ground is accelerating, whereas the person free-falling towards the ground is not.

I think if he hasn't got it by now, any further attempts to convince him will constitute a waste of keystrokes.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #687 on: September 22, 2008, 10:17:21 AM »
Everything in relativity is exactly that - relative. Any problem has to be laid out in the format of observer and object under consideration.  If the observer is free-falling, he is justifiably 'at rest' in a relativistic sense, since the only thing all observers can agree on is "Does anyone have their jetpack switched on right now?".  It doesn't matter if that 'jetpack' is just that, or whether it's contact acceleration from the ground, or an asteroid hitting you in the face.  Let's assume the Earth is made of glass and cannot be seen by eye - someone standing on the ground is accelerating upwards, as seen by someone free-falling above them.
They would each see the other as accelerating.  But the free-faller is the one who is really accelerating based on a coordinate system.  That is why freefallers at both poles of the earth will hit the ground.   

Quote
Likewise, to the person on the ground the free-faller appears to be accelerating downwards towards them - the difference is that when the two look at their accelerometers the free-faller reads zero, and the guy on the ground measures an upwards acceleration of g. Consequently we can conclude that, in any meaningful definition of acceleration, the person on the ground is accelerating, whereas the person free-falling towards the ground is not.
Have you ever used one of those simple force scales? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #688 on: September 22, 2008, 10:18:23 AM »
Everything in relativity is exactly that - relative. Any problem has to be laid out in the format of observer and object under consideration.  If the observer is free-falling, he is justifiably 'at rest' in a relativistic sense, since the only thing all observers can agree on is "Does anyone have their jetpack switched on right now?".  It doesn't matter if that 'jetpack' is just that, or whether it's contact acceleration from the ground, or an asteroid hitting you in the face.  Let's assume the Earth is made of glass and cannot be seen by eye - someone standing on the ground is accelerating upwards, as seen by someone free-falling above them.

Likewise, to the person on the ground the free-faller appears to be accelerating downwards towards them - the difference is that when the two look at their accelerometers the free-faller reads zero, and the guy on the ground measures an upwards acceleration of g. Consequently we can conclude that, in any meaningful definition of acceleration, the person on the ground is accelerating, whereas the person free-falling towards the ground is not.

I think if he hasn't got it by now, any further attempts to convince him will constitute a waste of keystrokes.

Quote
Equivalence principle

A person in a free-falling elevator experiences weightlessness during their fall, and objects either float alongside them or drift at constant speed. Since everything in the elevator is falling together, no gravitational effect can be observed. In this way, the experiences of an observer in free fall are indistinguishable from those of an observer in deep space, far from any sufficent source of gravity. Such observers are the privileged ("inertial") observers Einstein described in his theory of special relativity: observers for whom light travels along straight lines at constant speed.[2]

Einstein hypothesized that the similar experiences of weightless observers and inertial observers in special relativity represented a fundamental property of gravity, and he made this the cornerstone of his theory of general relativity, formalized in his equivalence principle. Roughly speaking, the principle states that a person in a free-falling elevator cannot tell that they are in free fall. Every experiment in such a free-falling environment has the same results as it would for an observer at rest or moving uniformly in deep space, far from all sources of gravity.

Please learn it. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Clarification on Gravity
« Reply #689 on: September 22, 2008, 10:19:54 AM »
They would each see the other as accelerating.  But the free-faller is the one who is really accelerating based on a coordinate system.  That is why freefallers at both poles of the earth will hit the ground.

I'm going to side with the white supremacists.