Clarification on Gravity

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

Good point, my mistake. So then can someone answer me why gravitation doesn't occur on earth? Wouldn't that accelerate us towards earth in addition to the inertial force of FE's acceleration?

answers dont exist on this forum.

Good point, my mistake. So then can someone answer me why gravitation doesn't occur on earth? Wouldn't that accelerate us towards earth in addition to the inertial force of FE's acceleration?

As mentioned in this thread, whether you take the 'no gravitation' position or not seems to be a matter of personal preference - you can make the case for no matter on the FE gravitating, you can make the case for the FE gravitating like normal matter in addition to the universal acceleration field, or you can argue for a hybrid, where the matter on the FE disc is somehow partially shielded by the interaction with the UA. There are pros and cons to every argument, but they all at least superficially agree with RET.

answers dont exist on this forum.

Cynical noob is cynical.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

From wiki:

In physics, a force is a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity.

I'd say that gravity is a pull (from one object with mass) that causes an(other) object with mass to change its velocity. So, I'd call gravity a force.

Hell, it's known by most intelligent people as one of the four universal forces. "imaginary force" my ass.

From wiki:

Quote

In physics, a force is a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity.

I'd say that gravity is a pull (from one object with mass) that causes an(other) object with mass to change its velocity. So, I'd call gravity a force.

Hell, it's known by most intelligent people as one of the four universal forces. "imaginary force" my ass.

FE'ers don't use regular physics or logic in their "evidence" or "proof" of a flat earth

As mentioned in this thread, whether you take the 'no gravitation' position or not seems to be a matter of personal preference - you can make the case for no matter on the FE gravitating, you can make the case for the FE gravitating like normal matter in addition to the universal acceleration field, or you can argue for a hybrid, where the matter on the FE disc is somehow partially shielded by the interaction with the UA. There are pros and cons to every argument, but they all at least superficially agree with RET.

Quote from: Colossal Death Robot on June 07, 2009, 10:25:45 PM

answers dont exist on this forum.

Cynical noob is cynical.

But how is it a matter of personal preference? I mean, either there is a force of gravitation or there isn't. Either one that is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. That's like me saying that whether or not the tooth fairy exists is a matter of preference. Sure, its ok to believe in the tooth fairy. But when you give made-up, ungrounded theories and pseudo-scientific arguments, then there's a problem.

Btw, "cynical noob" is right.

thanks

It's pretty hilarious that you can insist that they're different.

Must be hilarious that if you've every taken physics at a high level, you'd find out the same thing. Or perhaps if you actually read the original post. Either way, I'm not surprised this thread still lives on with people that are incapable of reading or processing simple information.

first and foremost, the "speed of light" is not the "maximum speed of the universe" and this is a completely horrible concept at best. black holes consume light and everything else within their reach; which means even the speed of light can't escape the speed of a black hole's grip

first and foremost, the "speed of light" is not the "maximum speed of the universe" and this is a completely horrible concept at best. black holes consume light and everything else within their reach; which means even the speed of light can't escape the speed of a black hole's grip

And?  What else?

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a universal speed limit; it just needs a clarification.  The speed limit of c is a local property of spacetime and it is never violated in any differential piece of spacetime.

So Your saying Isaac Newton was wrong. this makes no sense if the world was flat whats keeping us stuck to the planet a "pseudo force" that comes from where

So Your saying Isaac Newton was wrong. this makes no sense if the world was flat whats keeping us stuck to the planet a "pseudo force" that comes from where

Isaac Newton has been proven wrong many times.  See Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

So Your saying Isaac Newton was wrong. this makes no sense if the world was flat whats keeping us stuck to the planet a "pseudo force" that comes from where

Like many new ideas, Newton's version of gravity got some things right and some things wrong.  Although flawed, Newton's ideas serve as a starting point for a better understanding gravity, not an ending point.

Okay, i was GOING to say this, but then realized the answer midway through my writings:

              Not quite sure if this has been brought up BUT....

             If we are saying "gravity" is the Flat Earth accelerating in one direction (at 9.81 m/s^2), then how come we haven't hit the speed of light and stopped?

Then i realized that with time dilation, our slowed acceleration would seem to us to still be accelerating at the constant rate (i.e.; to outside viewers we are accelerating at 4.905 m/s^2, but because our time is progressing at 1/2 the rate of *stationary* time, the acceleration to us seems to be 9.81 m/s^2).



i fuv logic!!

Okay, i was GOING to say this, but then realized the answer midway through my writings:

              Not quite sure if this has been brought up BUT....

             If we are saying "gravity" is the Flat Earth accelerating in one direction (at 9.81 m/s^2), then how come we haven't hit the speed of light and stopped?

Then i realized that with time dilation, our slowed acceleration would seem to us to still be accelerating at the constant rate (i.e.; to outside viewers we are accelerating at 4.905 m/s^2, but because our time is progressing at 1/2 the rate of *stationary* time, the acceleration to us seems to be 9.81 m/s^2).



i fuv logic!!

Relativity.

Quote from: Torin on May 18, 2009, 12:24:33 PM

...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.

Lol. I've been gone from the site for a while, but this is an interesting answer. It's like you really expect me to slog through hundreds of posts to find the specific answers I am looking for, thus removing yourself and anyone else from having to make an explanation that would be, frankly, retarded.

Besides, is the joke any fun if you're going to be snide about it?

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?

1. Not everything in the universe is accelerating at the same rate. Things in respect to the Earth are, but not the universe.
2. Gravitation exists.

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.

1. This isn't gravity "as REers see it," as I pointed out the original post, this is accepted science.
2. Gravitation accounts for the latter portion of this paragraph.

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

Er, dark energy doesn't affect objects on Earth if that's what you're getting at.

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.

Ya, it doesn't seem like you get it.

Lol. I've been gone from the site for a while, but this is an interesting answer. It's like you really expect me to slog through hundreds of posts to find the specific answers I am looking for, thus removing yourself and anyone else from having to make an explanation that would be, frankly, retarded.

I've been gone for a while as well, but it's nice to see that the quality of responses has remained constant in my absence. I'm not asking you to "slog through hundreds of posts" (though if you listen carefully you may hear a tiny violin playing a sad, sad song), since we have this marvellous contraption known as a "Search Engine". This reduces the (for reading purposes) infinite amount of text on this site to a small, subject-specific list. Just please try it - if you haven't figured out how to search effectively by now then I suggest you are seriously behind on your internet skills.

Besides, is the joke any fun if you're going to be snide about it?

What joke?

I have not read the entirety of this but what I noticed were a couple of things...
 
firstly the fact that I can jump

secondly that tacking things out of context is not cool
"All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, free falling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to show (after ~9 years of work) that gravity is indeed a fictitious force; the apparent acceleration is actually inertial motion in curved spacetime. This is the essential physics of Einstein's theory of general relativity."

the above quote is not of einsteing disproving gravity but rather the way gravity works

thirdly the idea that the bends along both axis seen in many picturs is due to the weight of the ice caps that would however would be a result of gravity 

thirdly the idea that the bends along both axis seen in many picturs is due to the weight of the ice caps that would however would be a result of gravity

 

If our frame of reference is non-inertial, then there is NO GRAVITY whatsoever.
Reasoning:
Your argument assumes that gravity is the creation of an inertial frame to prove that since the FE is non-inertial, then there is no force of gravity. 
However, if gravity is the result of an inertial frame of reference, then there can be no gravity on earth.
CONSEQUENT: I can jump to the moon.  Which is probably also flat based on the FE theory; anyone up for an epic game of REAL LIFE SPACE PONG?!?!  By the way if you miss the moon then I think you can float to heaven because isn't that what lies beyond the atmosphere?

If our frame of reference is non-inertial, then there is NO GRAVITY whatsoever.
Reasoning:
Your argument assumes that gravity is the creation of an inertial frame to prove that since the FE is non-inertial, then there is no force of gravity. 
However, if gravity is the result of an inertial frame of reference, then there can be no gravity on earth.
CONSEQUENT: I can jump to the moon.  Which is probably also flat based on the FE theory; anyone up for an epic game of REAL LIFE SPACE PONG?!?!  By the way if you miss the moon then I think you can float to heaven because isn't that what lies beyond the atmosphere?

You are making no sense whatsoever. Do you understand what an inertial frame of reference is?

firstly the fact that I can jump

Let me stop you there - as we all know, white men can't jump.

In all seriousness, please please pleaaaaase lrn2equivalenceprinciple.

I can jump to the moon.

Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?

A cow jumped over it once. Everyone knows that, so it must be true.

What ever happened to this thing known as physics?

What ever happened to this thing known as physics?

This thread is probably the most physics-heavy on the entire site... way to fail.

Alright, so unless I am reading this wrong your saying this thread is all about physics that I am not arguing about.  The fact that one of the major elements of physics is GRAVITY how can you study or agree with physics without it? Please tell me where I have gone wrong with this.

There are two answers to this question:
1) FET does not need gravitation thanks to the equivalence principle (do a quick search of this thread to check this for yourself)
2) FET can accommodate both gravitation and the UA/DE field simultaneously