Gravity is a "fictitious force" ... so The Earth is flat.

Einstein's (well-respected) Theories of Relativity state that gravity is a "fictitious force" - i.e. one that does not exist - just like the centrifugal force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_forces#Gravity_as_a_fictitious_force

"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, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime."

General Relativity also states that, in reality, a person standing on the surface of The Earth is not at rest, but is, in fact, being accelerated upwards (with an accelartion of g):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#General_relativity

"Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These straight lines are called geodesics. Like Newton's First Law, Einstein's theory stated that if there is a force applied to an object, it would deviate from the geodesics in spacetime. For example, we are no longer following the geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us. Thus, we are non-inertial on the ground. This explains why moving along the geodesics in spacetime is considered inertial."

Now ...

If I, standing on the ground in the UK in The Northern Hemisphere/disc, am being accelerated upwards by The Earth pushing up under me *and* my friend Andy in Australia in The Southern Hemisphere/disc, is *also* being accelerated upwards by The Earth pushing up under him ...

Then The Earth must be perfectly flat ...

Because if it *were* a globe (or even slightly bent), it would be either pulling itself apart or growing in size; both of which are, of course, nonsensical.

[Edit: correct typo's.]

actually there is a theory that the earth is growing slowly due to the amount of oceans versus land mass or somthing like that

actually there is a theory that the earth is growing slowly due to the amount of oceans versus land mass or somthing like that

lol, 10th grade

gb2/homecoming dance/

Quote from: Ast Onok on October 18, 2008, 04:34:52 PM

actually there is a theory that the earth is growing slowly due to the amount of oceans versus land mass or somthing like that

lol, 10th grade

gb2/homecoming dance/

And here was I hoping for a serious critique of my amusing little theory ...

But apparently teenage hair-cuts are more pressing ...

*Sigh*

E.Jack? Robbyj? Osama? Ghazwozza? Anyone?

Personally... I don't trust anything that anybody says Einstein "said".

Especially regarding Relativity.

Gravity acting on two masses in freefall makes the reference frame static and hence fictitious?

What happens if I am measuring the speed of a photon in relation to the speed of another photon? Does that make electromagnetic force fictitious?

Just my two cents.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on October 18, 2008, 07:20:01 PM

Quote from: Ast Onok on October 18, 2008, 04:34:52 PM

actually there is a theory that the earth is growing slowly due to the amount of oceans versus land mass or somthing like that

lol, 10th grade

gb2/homecoming dance/

And here was I hoping for a serious critique of my amusing little theory ...

But apparently teenage hair-cuts are more pressing ...

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, that's not a hair question... no comment.

You're really going flat earth 3 Tesla? Bummer.

Einstein said gravitation would only be indistinguishable from UA to an observer in a closed room. Once you leave that room you run into all the other problems that we argue here every day... My favorite, to be sure, is do you think the constellations your friend in Australia sees at night would be different from those a potential friend in South America would see? The problem with this argument, I know, is that no-one anywhere has a South American friend. They're rare as hell.

Don't tell me you're FE too? I assumed this whole post was a satire or parody. Nevertheless, I shall answer.

The flaw is, of course, you're naive treatment of reference frames. Your argument is this:

1) Someone in the UK sees the Earth's surface accelerating away from the centre.
2) Someone in Australia sees the Earth's surface accelerating away from the centre.
3) Therefore these two points are accelerating away from each other.
4) By extension, the entire globe must be growing.
5) It isn't, so the Earth can't be round.

The fallacy arises in step 3). You're comparing accelerations in two completely different reference frames. You need to transform the acceleration the UK-man sees into the Australian reference frame. If you do that, you should see your problems disappear.

Gravity acting on two masses in freefall makes the reference frame static and hence fictitious?

"Gravity" doesn't act on masses in free-fall.

Einstein said gravitation would only be indistinguishable from UA to an observer in a closed room. Once you leave that room you run into all the other problems that we argue here every day...

That's terribly vague. The equivalence principle has nothing to do with being in a closed room. In fact, if you are in a closed room with tremendous amount of tidal effects, the differences will still be apparent. Thus, tidal effects, as related to the curvature of space-time, are what that distinguish gravitation from acceleration. If you do leave the room (going outside of your house, e.g), the tidal effects in your FoR are still extremely small relative to the RE's: tidal effects depend on your position in a gravitational field.

For example, relative acceleration of free-falling bodies is caused by tidal effects:

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on October 19, 2008, 05:00:46 AM

Einstein said gravitation would only be indistinguishable from UA to an observer in a closed room. Once you leave that room you run into all the other problems that we argue here every day...

That's terribly vague. The equivalence principle has nothing to do with being in a closed room. In fact, if you are in a closed room with tremendous amount of tidal effects, the differences will still be apparent. Thus, tidal effects, as related to the curvature of space-time, are what that distinguish gravitation from acceleration. If you do leave the room (going outside of your house, e.g), the tidal effects in your FoR are still extremely small relative to the RE's: tidal effects depend on your position in a gravitational field.

Other than the tides themselves, I know nothing of tidal effects, and less about the equivalence principle. I do know that the main point of my post was that I can kick a few blocks out from under gears theory soon enough... That's my deck of card theory. If FET can't explain what everyone on various parts of the planet see when they look up at night, then FET has a big gaping hole. FET is going to have to do better than Tom's, or Robosteves "new maps". I know garbage when I see it.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on October 19, 2008, 05:00:46 AM

Einstein said gravitation would only be indistinguishable from UA to an observer in a closed room. Once you leave that room you run into all the other problems that we argue here every day...

That's terribly vague. The equivalence principle has nothing to do with being in a closed room. In fact, if you are in a closed room with tremendous amount of tidal effects, the differences will still be apparent. Thus, tidal effects, as related to the curvature of space-time, are what that distinguish gravitation from acceleration. If you do leave the room (going outside of your house, e.g), the tidal effects in your FoR are still extremely small relative to the RE's: tidal effects depend on your position in a gravitational field.

For example, relative acceleration of free-falling bodies is caused by tidal effects:

The equivalence principle states there is no local experiment that can be done to distinguish between acceleration and gravity. The "measuring tidal forces in a room" experiment is not local because it requires measurements in at least two different places. These places can be arbitrarily close, but always need some seperation.

Alternatively, the equivalence principle can be stated: "there is no experiment that can distinguish a  uniform gravitational filed from a unifrom acceleration."

(I'm not specifically disagreeing woth anyone, just trying to clear things up.)

Here is a better definition of the equivalence principle:

Thus, a more precise formulation of the equivalence principle states that in any freely falling reference frame, the laws of physics are the same as in special relativity, as long as tidal effects can be neglected.

Question about tidal forces.  From what I understand of gravitation, when an object gets closer to another the gravitational pull between the two object gets stronger.  In some cases, when one of the objects is significantly stronger, such as a black hole or star.  These tidal forces can be significant enough to tear apart objects coming towards it.  We observed this with the Shoemaker-Levy comet which hit Jupiter in 1994.  The gravitational pull of Jupiter was strong enough to tear the comet apart.  Is that evidence against gravity being a fictitious force?  The way I see it, if that comet was within a box in freefall toward jupiter, it would have felt these tidal forces since it was being torn to pieces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9

My favorite, to be sure, is do you think the constellations your friend in Australia sees at night would be different from those a potential friend in South America would see? The problem with this argument, I know, is that no-one anywhere has a South American friend. They're rare as hell.

Actually, I have two friends in Chile too ...

Here is a better definition of the equivalence principle:

Quote from: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/equivalence_principle/index.html

Thus, a more precise formulation of the equivalence principle states that in any freely falling reference frame, the laws of physics are the same as in special relativity, as long as tidal effects can be neglected.

Does this mean that you agree that the EP has been misapplied to the FE all along?

Why would it? FE doesn't possess a gravitational field.

Why would it? FE doesn't possess a gravitational field.

Does the FE have mass?

Yes.

Then the FE has a gravitational field, that is unless you are saying that GR is wrong.

In this thread, FE admits that.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24151.0

Then the FE has a gravitational field, that is unless you are saying that GR is wrong.

Anti-gravitation, produced in the interaction with DE, neutralizes the spacetime curvature exerted by the FE's mass.

Quote from: markjo on October 19, 2008, 09:16:34 AM

Then the FE has a gravitational field, that is unless you are saying that GR is wrong.

Anti-gravitation, produced in the interaction with DE, neutralizes the spacetime curvature exerted by the FE's mass.

Or, you could just as easily say that the anti-gravitation, produced in the interaction with DE, neutralizes the acceleration exerted by the UA.  Both are equally impossible to prove.

Besides, do you realize how rich you could become if you could harness this anti-gravitation? 

Besides, do you realize how rich you could become if you could harness this anti-gravitation? 

Misusing science for cynical personal gain ...

Isn't that NASA's job?