Clarification on Gravity

It doesn't but the electroweak and strong interactions are interactions. They transfer momentum which macroscopically appears as a force. The very idea of force at a quantum mechanical level is at best poorly defined. Force is a macroscopic quantity that describes the resistance of a body with inertial mass to acceleration. As such I would argue that the idea of a 'fundamental force' is a contradiction in terms which is why the term fundamental interaction is, in my opinion, more correct. I'm not presenting an argument for why gravity is a quantum field, I suspect it is, but all I can show is that QFT and GR are incomplete. My point is simply that the term fictitious force, is at best misleading. However not nearly as misleading as the idea the the quantum fields are in any way more or less fundamental than gravity. All other inertial forces occur out of viewing quantum interactions in various frames. I would argue that gravity must be in some way as fundamental regardless of whether the mechanism is quantum mechanical or not.

So can we agree that the term 'fictitious force' is reasonable in the context that gravity on the surface of the Earth can be viewed as being completely equivalent to a flat disc accelerating upwards, and go from there?

Depends on whether you believe experiments showing pendulums attracted to mountains. Though as to the use of fictitious force, why not, it matches the cause of the acceleration and indeed the thinking behind it.

Well it really comes down to whether you are playing for the "FE has no gravitating matter at all" or the "bulk of FE matter does not gravitate due to DEF/UA/<insert accelerating mechanism here> interaction".  Personally I choose to believe that gravitation has to fit into FET for it to be a credible contender, but there is still the "zero gravitation on FE" hypothesis to disprove, so both approaches can be debated here.

Once again, in this thread the distinction has been made between the instantaneously propagating force of 'gravity', which amounts to invisible springs pulling objects together, and the general relativistic interpretation of 'gravitation', with geodesics et al.

It's not a universally accepted distinction, but as philosophers say at the start of a debate: "state your terms".  I guess this is just one of those terms for this thread.

Now, you say gravity doesn't exist, but then your FAQ invokes it to explain the "orbit" of the Sun, Moon and stars. Why should celestial objects experience gravity, but not us?

Now, you say gravity doesn't exist, but then your FAQ invokes it to explain the "orbit" of the Sun, Moon and stars. Why should celestial objects experience gravity, but not us?

The FAQ may be referring to 'gravitation' in this context, but even if you are assuming that the FE has no gravity and the cosmos does, then it is because the FE is different to the other observed celestial bodies.

Uh... this answer for gravity doesn't make sense to me. If everything is accelerating at the same rate in the same direction, then nothing is, functionally, moving unless acted upon by an outside source... Meaning that if gravity as RE'ers know it didn't also exist, it wouldn't exist period, making the dark energy theory redundant, as we know gravity exists in some form or another, right?

And without gravity as the RE'ers see it, how could matter coalesce into objects? I mean, if we lose the classical view of gravity and adopt the FET theory on  dark energy, everything is just propelled through vast and empty space endlessly -- there would be no force to pull that matter together into what we know to be celestial bodies.

Also, the explaination I read for terminal velocity sounds a little fishy, seeing as objects would also be acted up by dark energy, right?

It sounds to me like the Dark Energy theory can't function without normal gravity, and is thus, again, redundant. Maybe I just don't get it.

Quote from: Redingold on May 14, 2009, 12:48:16 PM

Now, you say gravity doesn't exist, but then your FAQ invokes it to explain the "orbit" of the Sun, Moon and stars. Why should celestial objects experience gravity, but not us?

The FAQ may be referring to 'gravitation' in this context, but even if you are assuming that the FE has no gravity and the cosmos does, then it is because the FE is different to the other observed celestial bodies.

How are they different?

Don't the line spectra of stars show that they are composed of bog-standard, everyday matter (Hydrogen)?

So how does the matter in stars react with gravity, but not the matter on the Earth?

Quote from: Matrix on May 14, 2009, 01:27:17 PM

Quote from: Redingold on May 14, 2009, 12:48:16 PM

Now, you say gravity doesn't exist, but then your FAQ invokes it to explain the "orbit" of the Sun, Moon and stars. Why should celestial objects experience gravity, but not us?

The FAQ may be referring to 'gravitation' in this context, but even if you are assuming that the FE has no gravity and the cosmos does, then it is because the FE is different to the other observed celestial bodies.

How are they different?

Don't the line spectra of stars show that they are composed of bog-standard, everyday matter (Hydrogen)?

So how does the matter in stars react with gravity, but not the matter on the Earth?

The celestial bodies may be composed partly of exotic matter that we either can't detect or just plain haven't yet thought to look for.

Or can't look for.  How do I detect an unknown material if I don't know it exists or how to look for it?

Or can't look for.  How do I detect an unknown material if I don't know it exists or how to look for it?

Exactly.

...Is everyone just going to ignore my post?

...Is everyone just going to ignore my post?

Yes, since every one of your points has been answered many times over.  Please use the search, then restate your questions citing the threads you looked up and what you don't understand about the answers given.

  How do I detect an unknown material if I don't know it exists or how to look for it?

The argument is the same for religion. For it to exist, an individual must put faith in it. And if that is the only way for it to exist, it can not be scientifically correct.

So for all the flat earthers (Christian or not) how do you think all celestial bodys were made without gravity? were they magnetised together or something? are they together coz "God did it"?

So for all the flat earthers (Christian or not) how do you think all celestial bodys were made without gravity? were they magnetised together or something? are they together coz "God did it"?

Or perhaps it's only the Earth that doesn't experience gravity in the same way as the celestial bodies... it's the only one with life on it after all, why shouldn't it be 'special'?

Quote from: Entropic Muffin on May 28, 2009, 11:49:31 PM

So for all the flat earthers (Christian or not) how do you think all celestial bodys were made without gravity? were they magnetised together or something? are they together coz "God did it"?

Or perhaps it's only the Earth that doesn't experience gravity in the same way as the celestial bodies... it's the only one with life on it after all, why shouldn't it be 'special'?

Yes, the earth is the only planet with life as far as we know, but there is a reason for that.
You know why the earth has the ability to sustain life, but Venus can not?

Yes, the earth is the only planet with life as far as we know, but there is a reason for that.
You know why the earth has the ability to sustain life, but Venus can not?

There are a number of reasons; I put it to you that there are too many free variables to say beyond all doubt that we understand why the Earth appears to be unique.

The fact that Earth is "special" or "unique" is meaningless. It has no scientific support. It doesn't make any sense just to say "Because we're special".

The fact that Earth is "special" or "unique" is meaningless. It has no scientific support. It doesn't make any sense just to say "Because we're special".

Except of course we are unique in one very obvious way.

Quote from: Abysmal on June 01, 2009, 07:47:05 PM

The fact that Earth is "special" or "unique" is meaningless. It has no scientific support. It doesn't make any sense just to say "Because we're special".

Except of course we are unique in one very obvious way.

In what way?

In what way?

It's the only celestial body with a FES.

Quote from: svenanders on June 02, 2009, 11:58:32 AM

In what way?

It's the only celestial body with a FES.

That I can agree on. How are you tonight Matrix?

Quote from: svenanders on June 02, 2009, 11:58:32 AM

In what way?

It's the only celestial body with a FES.

common sense proves it!

If I meant that the earth is the only celestial body with a Flat Earth Society,
I would agree.

If you don't understand the Einstein Field Equations, and you call gravitation a "fictitious inertial force", then you're no better than a deaf person saying that sound is an illusion.

The opinion of a firm round-earther.

If you don't understand the Einstein Field Equations, and you call gravitation a "fictitious inertial force", then you're no better than a deaf person saying that sound is an illusion.

The opinion of a firm round-earther.

The opinion of someone who hasn't read the thread he's posting in, more like.

I'm good thanks though, Sven, how about you?

Quote from: shinjitsu on June 05, 2009, 03:33:45 PM

If you don't understand the Einstein Field Equations, and you call gravitation a "fictitious inertial force", then you're no better than a deaf person saying that sound is an illusion.

The opinion of a firm round-earther.

The opinion of someone who hasn't read the thread he's posting in, more like.

I'm good thanks though, Sven, how about you?

Can't complain. The kid is asleep, and I'm pretty relaxed enjoying a few beers.

Quote from: shinjitsu on June 05, 2009, 03:33:45 PM

If you don't understand the Einstein Field Equations, and you call gravitation a "fictitious inertial force", then you're no better than a deaf person saying that sound is an illusion.

The opinion of a firm round-earther.

The opinion of someone who hasn't read the thread he's posting in, more like.

I'm good thanks though, Sven, how about you?

Well, yea, I haven't read the entire thread. Mainly because I don't have the time to read 56 pages worth of posts
So can you enlighten me on what is incorrect about the quote that I made above?

In Einstein's theory, there isn't actually a force of gravity; large masses cause space-time to curve into (I think) a higher dimension (like rolling up a sheet of paper), causing things to travel in curved lines in this one. From the point of view of something in a higher dimension, everything moves in straight lines. BTW, I'm no expert on this, so this may not be right.

Quote from: Matrix on June 05, 2009, 04:00:01 PM

Quote from: shinjitsu on June 05, 2009, 03:33:45 PM

If you don't understand the Einstein Field Equations, and you call gravitation a "fictitious inertial force", then you're no better than a deaf person saying that sound is an illusion.

The opinion of a firm round-earther.

The opinion of someone who hasn't read the thread he's posting in, more like.

I'm good thanks though, Sven, how about you?

Well, yea, I haven't read the entire thread. Mainly because I don't have the time to read 56 pages worth of posts
So can you enlighten me on what is incorrect about the quote that I made above?

Im pretty sure they call "gravity" the ficticous force, not gravitation.