Clarification on Gravity

Despite the fact that you just blew my mind, you're right it will take me a little bit to understand what I just saw. I guess that's what college is for. To give us more info and then expand on that to prove the last smartest guy/girl wrong. If everyone is always being disproved there's no point in trying, but if you do prove something you should have a few hundred years for people to say your name and follow it with a...dammmmn. I don't even want to ask my teacher about it because he'll probably send me to a smart science class and I'll be screwed.

I don't even want to ask my teacher about it because he'll probably send me to a smart science class and I'll be screwed.

Why? It's a gift in the long run.

My goal is to make it into college, flunking a class like that is a big NO on the acceptance board for any college.

Just to be clear, I am a FE'er, but what we're talking about here isn't exclusively Flat Earth Theory. The maths/concepts involved are used as part of FET, but it is an integral part of mainstream physics, and is also wholly consistent with RET; indeed, it is fundamental to both.

I see, it would be great fun to learn about all this and prove the world wrong.

Yes, my point though is that if you drop an apple, it falls. What else could make it fall besides it saying it doesn't want to (not literally, just saying). I'm sure whatever NEEMAN was talking about would work although I know nothing about it I can't say so. But if I understand what you're saying correctly, that if there isn't a chair under an apple it will fall, or is presumed to fall? Correct? But if the apple falls from a tree, with nothing under it, it will fall and hit the ground. I'm not saying you're wrong just not completely sure of what you mean because it's common sense that something without the power to propel itself up, will in fact fall. Until something is surely proven to say that gravity is not the force that is acting upon the apple (or any object), I cannot believe it doesn't exist. If what you're saying is true, that someone has disproved it, then I must be wrong, but I haven't seen or heard about it so until then I can't argue any further than simple common sense so let it be known I AM NOT SAYING IT DOESN'T EXIST. I can't argue in favor or against it so if you would like to explain go ahead but I can't say that I'll agree because the words you use I usually have never heard of because they're key terms in a science I have not studied. I'm sure if you ask anyone (the normal RE'er) they will say the same, so if you come back and say anything more about me not knowing about it, well, I only have one thing to say. Get over it. I will continue to put in my points of view because that's what the site is for and the whole freedom of speech thing.

sorry, when reading my post again i realized it is still a bit difficult to understand. i hope it gets better this time:

i don't want to say that any theory regarding gravity or whatever has been disproven. i only wanted to show that it is possible to disprove a theory. you can't prove a theory, you can only disprove it. forget the whole apple thing it was only a (bad) thought experiment.

my point is the following:
my theory predicts: if you do the following things the result will be...
i do the mentioned things and something different happens.
-> something with my theory is wrong
-> theory in its current state is disproven

i only wanted to show that under certain circumstances it is possible to disprove a theory.

oh and one last thing: i really have no problem with your opinions, you can post whatever you want 

Thank you and I understand where you're coming from I just took it the wrong way also.

I never thought this thread would carry on so long - nice work team!

I hope you don't mind Divito.  Let's see if this makes any difference.

hey why is that earth round? that isn't relevant to my beliefs

If gravity does not exist, why do womens tits hang down when they get older? Or if they have large boobs.
I'm serious about this!!

F_earth > F_perky

F_earth > F_perky

^What?

The earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s².  A female has a particular mass.  The force exerted on the female is equal to mass*acceleration which would be F_earth.  This force is transferred through her skeletal structure which is rigid, hopefully, accelerating her upwards.  Her breasts, however, are connected to her skeletal structure via connective tissues and skin which are not rigid.  A counteractive force is required, depending on breast size,  to maintain a_breast equal to a_earth at an attractive height.  We will call this force F_perky.  If a difference in acceleration occurs, the skeletal structure of the female will begin to accelerate faster than the breast causing the skin and connective tissues to stretch increasing tension thus eventually balancing F_earth and F_breast at a value somewhat higher than the desired F_perky causing the breast to drop to a lower, less attractive height.  Got it now?

The earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s².  A female has a particular mass.  The force exerted on the female is equal to mass*acceleration which would be F_earth.  This force is transferred through her skeletal structure which is rigid, hopefully, accelerating her upwards.  Her breasts, however, are connected to her skeletal structure via connective tissues and skin which are not rigid.  A counteractive force is required, depending on breast size,  to maintain a_breast equal to a_earth at an attractive height.  We will call this force F_perky.  If a difference in acceleration occurs, the skeletal structure of the female will begin to accelerate faster than the breast causing the skin and connective tissues to stretch increasing tension thus eventually balancing F_earth and F_breast at a value somewhat higher than the desired F_perky causing the breast to drop to a lower, less attractive height.  Got it now?

What? If there is no gravity breasts should not be hanging down, because there is no force attracting on them.
But because breasts ARE indeed hanging down it's evidence for an attractive force. This is also known as gravity.

The earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s².  A female has a particular mass.  The force exerted on the female is equal to mass*acceleration which would be F_earth.  This force is transferred through her skeletal structure which is rigid, hopefully, accelerating her upwards.  Her breasts, however, are connected to her skeletal structure via connective tissues and skin which are not rigid.  A counteractive force is required, depending on breast size,  to maintain a_breast equal to a_earth at an attractive height.  We will call this force F_perky.  If a difference in acceleration occurs, the skeletal structure of the female will begin to accelerate faster than the breast causing the skin and connective tissues to stretch increasing tension thus eventually balancing F_earth and F_breast at a value somewhat higher than the desired F_perky causing the breast to drop to a lower, less attractive height.  Got it now?

F_perky  

Classic!

What? If there is no gravity breasts should not be hanging down, because there is no force attracting on them.
But because breasts ARE indeed hanging down it's evidence for an attractive force. This is also known as gravity.

I just explained that to you.  What part did you not follow?

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 04:31:22 AM

What? If there is no gravity breasts should not be hanging down, because there is no force attracting on them.
But because breasts ARE indeed hanging down it's evidence for an attractive force. This is also known as gravity.

I just explained that to you.  What part did you not follow?

It doesn't make any sense and does not explains anything. Also if we were to accelerate upwards at a rate of 9.82m/s² wouldn't we feel the acceleration on our bodies.
If you're in a car that accelerates very fast, you can feel the acceleration on your body. Also, if you have long hair, you can see that the hair is dragged backwards. I can't feel any acceleration when standing on the earth. Why is this?

It doesn't make any sense and does not explains anything. Also if we were to accelerate upwards at a rate of 9.82m/s² wouldn't we feel the acceleration on our bodies.

Uh... yea.

If you're in a car that accelerates very fast, you can feel the acceleration on your body. Also, if you have long hair, you can see that the hair is dragged backwards. I can't feel any acceleration when standing on the earth. Why is this?

Uh... yea you can. 

Edit:  Actually, now I understand where I lost you in my post about boob saggage.

It doesn't make any sense and does not explains anything. Also if we were to accelerate upwards at a rate of 9.82m/s² wouldn't we feel the acceleration on our bodies.
If you're in a car that accelerates very fast, you can feel the acceleration on your body. Also, if you have long hair, you can see that the hair is dragged backwards. I can't feel any acceleration when standing on the earth. Why is this?

You sure do feel acceleration when you are standing on Earth. Look up proper acceleration.

If gravity does not exist, why do womens tits hang down when they get older? Or if they have large boobs.
I'm serious about this!!

The titties fall down because of inertia.

This argument has been discussed in the past (using a different example). See Erasmus's explanation in this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=905.0

It doesn't make any sense and does not explains anything.

It's pretty simple. It's like asking why the end of a licorice stick bends downwards when you hold it out horizontal. The answer is that the earth is pushing upwards on your ringed body, accelerating it directly, causing the bendy flexible end of the extended licorice stick to drop towards the earth.

It doesn't make any sense and does not explains anything. Also if we were to accelerate upwards at a rate of 9.82m/s² wouldn't we feel the acceleration on our bodies.

Yes, you sure would.  9.8m/s^2 worth.

If you're in a car that accelerates very fast, you can feel the acceleration on your body.

Yep, you sure do.

Also, if you have long hair, you can see that the hair is dragged backwards.

Why is it accelerating at a lesser rate?

I can't feel any acceleration when standing on the earth. Why is this?

Because you are in...free fall?   

To whomever it may concern,
Interesting site you have here. The gravity=acceleration theory is definitely an interesting venture. I just wish to sincerely bring a small anomaly to your attention. It would seem that you would all agree that the universal speed limit is that of light (299,792,458 m/s). Assuming the earth is accelerating at 9.807m/s squared (the scientifically accepted value for what some uninformed individuals call 'gravity) due to dark matter, which is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, it is simple to calculate that the earth would reach the speed of light after 354.05 days of constant acceleration. As this point was to approach, one of 2 things would happen:

1) The earth would stop and we would all float into space.

2) The earth acceleration would have to dramatically diminish, and we would all be virtually weightless.

or if you're willing to allow a violation of the speed limit

3) The earth would begin to travel back in time in relation to the rest of the universe in order to accommodate relativistic effects.

It would seem that, assuming you believe the earth has been in existence for over 354.04 days, there is something amiss, because we are still not floating off into space, there has been no 'gravitational' change and going back in time would reverse the earth's rotation.

I think this aspect of the Flat Earth theory needs to be seriously considered in hopes of perhaps better understanding the nature of the earth. Thank you for your time.

-Zeebo

The earth, or any object for that matter, can accelerate constantly and never reach the speed of light.

Although you're right in saying that objects with mass (unlike photons) cannot reach the speed of light, this is because they do not accelerate constantly. If we examine a block, the more we push it, the faster it goes, the more energy is required to cause it to go faster. It would require infinite energy to bring a block (or in this case the earth) to the speed of light, which is why it is impossible. The acceleration of 9.807 m/s^2 required to simulate gravity would mean that each second, the earth would be traveling 9.807m/s faster.
-1 second after the earth's creation it would be traveling at 9.807 m/s
-at 2 seconds it would be going 19.614 ms/
-after 3 seconds the speed would be 28.421 m/s
etc. If the earth was to stop speeding up gravity would cease, and if the world was to keep speeding up it would have to reach the speed of light, which would have happened about a year after its creation. Both of these scenarios have not come to pass.

-1 second after the earth's creation it would be traveling at 9.807 m/s
-at 2 seconds it would be going 19.614 ms/
-after 3 seconds the speed would be 28.421 m/s

Once you reach relativistic speeds, that is no longer the case.

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/uniform_accel.htm

Both of these scenarios have not come to pass.

Obviously.

It is also true that in general relativity electromagnetic fields contribute to a curvature in spacetime. Ill need to think about it but I see no reason why one can't express a field equation as a curvature of spacetime. Though its been a while since i was any good at classical field theory.

Once you reach relativistic speeds, that is no longer the case.

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/uniform_accel.htm

Although relativistic effects should be considered, they cannot be applied in the instance of an accelerating earth, because you must also take mankind to be the observer. This negates the effects of relativity, because we observe the earth's acceleration to be our own. Also, the article you included fails to explain my initial query, regarding the earth's eventual infinitely large speed. It instead deals with uniform acceleration and world-lines, a completely different topic altogether.

In addition to this I want to clarify to anyone reading that uniform acceleration and uniform velocity must not be confused. Uniform acceleration implies an object is speeding up, while uniform velocity implies the acceleration is zero.

Although relativistic effects should be considered, they cannot be applied in the instance of an accelerating earth, because you must also take mankind to be the observer. This negates the effects of relativity, because we observe the earth's acceleration to be our own. Also, the article you included fails to explain my initial query, regarding the earth's eventual infinitely large speed. It instead deals with uniform acceleration and world-lines, a completely different topic altogether.

In addition to this I want to clarify to anyone reading that uniform acceleration and uniform velocity must not be confused. Uniform acceleration implies an object is speeding up, while uniform velocity implies the acceleration is zero.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Although relativistic effects should be considered, they cannot be applied in the instance of an accelerating earth, because you must also take mankind to be the observer. This negates the effects of relativity, because we observe the earth's acceleration to be our own.

If by 'negate' you mean we can not sense any relativistic effects because we are a part of that reference frame, then I agree.  That does not mean, however, that the effects are not present and cannot be applied to an accelerating earth.

Also, the article you included fails to explain my initial query, regarding the earth's eventual infinitely large speed.

There is no eventual infinitely large speed.  Earth's velocity would approach c, but never reach it.

In addition to this I want to clarify to anyone reading that uniform acceleration and uniform velocity must not be confused. Uniform acceleration implies an object is speeding up, while uniform velocity implies the acceleration is zero.

No where in that was acceleration or velocity confused.