"gravity decreasing"

Ok, let me break it down for you in really simple langauge:

Gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable.

Thus, for buoyancy to work, we need either gravitation or acceleration.

In RET, we have gravitation.

In FET, we have acceleration.



So it works in either theory. Capiche?

Your post achieves nothing, other than alerting the penguin guards to your location. You're glowing red braw!

Ok, let me break it down for you in really simple langauge:

Gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable.

Thus, for buoyancy to work, we need either gravitation or acceleration.

In RET, we have gravitation.

In FET, we have acceleration.



So it works in either theory. Capiche?

Don't waste your time Neeman.  Purposely obtuse troll is purposely obtuse.

Don't waste your time Neeman.  Purposely obtuse troll is purposely obtuse.

Right, because anyone who breaks down your arguments is a troll.

Right, because anyone who breaks down your arguments is a troll.

You didn't break down anything.  You said buoyancy requires gravity.  We said it didn't.  You admitted acceleration would cause the same phenomenon.  Then in the end you said buoyancy requires gravity again. 

Quote from: user99 on February 27, 2009, 05:08:34 PM

Right, because anyone who breaks down your arguments is a troll.

You didn't break down anything.  You said buoyancy requires gravity.  We said it didn't.  You admitted acceleration would cause the same phenomenon.  Then in the end you said buoyancy requires gravity again. 

No, "gravity" doesn't exist. lrn2fetheory.

"gravity" is in fact acceleration (as defined by FE theory) so

Bouyancy is not dependent on 'gravity'.

becomes

Bouyancy is not dependent on acceleration.

Which is untrue even by FE definition.

You want to go a few more posts or have you had enough now?

No, acceleration is acceleration which causes a fictitious force that you think is gravity to arise.  Purposely obtuse troll is purposely obtuse.

No, acceleration is acceleration which causes a fictitious force that you think is gravity to arise.  Purposely obtuse troll is purposely obtuse.

Which doesn't contradict anything I said.

Um...

I have to chime in...

Acceleration and Gravity are identical.  F.E., R.E., or R.E.S.P.E.C.T... it doesn't matter.  If you take a glass of water in a weightless environment and put a ping-pong ball in the middle of the water, it will stay suspended.  Accelerate it in any direction and the water will force the ping-pong ball in the direction of the acceleration.  Why?  Because the inertia of the water is greater than the ping pong ball.  It would put pressure on the ping pong ball and try to occupy the space it is in.

In a sense we are accelerating through gravity.  There is literally no distinction between gravity and acceleration.  Space Time is moving through us and the force we feel is the resistance to our inertia.

The water pressure we feel is it's inertia trying to occupy our space.  The more massive it is, the more inertia it has, and the more pressure we feel.

You could test this at home.  Get a jar or pitcher of water, tie a weight to a string and the string to a buoyant object.  Make it suspend halfway in the water.  Then move the pitcher.  The buoyant object will accelerate faster than the pitcher.

Quote from: NEEMAN on February 27, 2009, 11:22:51 AM

Ok, let me break it down for you in really simple langauge:

Gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable.

Thus, for buoyancy to work, we need either gravitation or acceleration.

In RET, we have gravitation.

In FET, we have acceleration.



So it works in either theory. Capiche?

Your post achieves nothing, other than alerting the penguin guards to your location. You're glowing red braw!

Troll. I hereby declare that anyone on this site has the right to ignore and mock you due to your violation of the Troll Act.

Troll. I hereby declare that anyone on this site has the right to ignore and mock you due to your violation of the Troll Act.

Right, because anyone who breaks down your arguments is a troll.

Keep posting chucklehound.

Quote from: NEEMAN on February 28, 2009, 05:10:48 AM

Troll. I hereby declare that anyone on this site has the right to ignore and mock you due to your violation of the Troll Act.

Quote from: user99 on February 27, 2009, 05:08:34 PM

Right, because anyone who breaks down your arguments is a troll.

Keep posting chucklehound.

I fear that you're being baited. Please do reconsider. Neeman has mostly correctly stated the science, his ad-hominem attack irrelevant. He incorrectly omits "locally" all too often, but that nuance is not importance to his point in this thread. RE and FE make the exact same predictions regarding buoyancy--when limited to the same altitude and the same locality (the perpendicular distance over which the experiment is conducted). The models differ though when either constraint is violated.

Buoyancy (and 'gravity') deep in a vertical mine shaft is less as RE correctly predicts. (FE fails to predict this decrease.)

Buoyancy (and 'gravity') high in a balloon's gondola is less as RE correctly predicts. (FE fails to predict this decrease.)

Buoyancy (and 'gravity') over horizontal distances is less (in the normal) as RE correctly predicts. (FE fails to predict this decrease.) This is really difficult to explain. RE predicts that 'gravity' is radially oriented 'down' to the center of the Earth, while FE predicts that 'gravity' is everywhere 'down'. If you'd like a detailed explanation, I'd be happy to work on one.

The bottom line though, is, if you'll allow the secondary differences to become your main point, you have successfully demonstrated another case where the RE model does a better job than the FE model.

There's no point in saying 'locally' in any discussion involving relativity here - the locality is implied due to GR being incapable of handling problems involving extended objects.  The only place that locality needs to be made explicit is in an environment where tidal forces are non-negligible, such as potentially the 'dark energy bow shock' above the FE surface.

How does this theory apply to the doppler effect that is experienced as you near the speed of light?  Stuff starts to change colors, and eventually you're no longer seeing the visible light spectrum.  While relative to you the speed of light is the same, you are still speeding towards light sources faster, which squishes the waves together.  I believe this causes a 'blue shift'.  Doppler shifts are well studied when looking at telescope pictures of things moving at a different speed than us, such as faroff galaxies.

Things like meteorites that we run into as we're accelerating would look very weird.

There's no point in saying 'locally' in any discussion involving relativity here - the locality is implied due to GR being incapable of handling problems involving extended objects.  The only place that locality needs to be made explicit is in an environment where tidal forces are non-negligible, such as potentially the 'dark energy bow shock' above the FE surface.

GR handles problems with extended objects quite well. The deflection of starlight passing near the Sun is one case. The argument made here that the two are equivalent depends on locality and fails on extended objects and we're dealing with extended objects, so locality is a key point here.

GR handles problems with extended objects quite well. The deflection of starlight passing near the Sun is one case. The argument made here that the two are equivalent depends on locality and fails on extended objects and we're dealing with extended objects, so locality is a key point here.

Well, strictly speaking the deflection of light past the Sun is only a one-body problem, since light follows a geodesic which is defined by the curvature (the light itself causes only negligible curvature).  I was referring to problems such as the Earth-Moon system (in RET)... GR doesn't handle them so well.

I was mainly making sure people didn't start wandering down blind alleys anyway - carry on!

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 01, 2009, 04:16:42 PM

GR handles problems with extended objects quite well. The deflection of starlight passing near the Sun is one case. The argument made here that the two are equivalent depends on locality and fails on extended objects and we're dealing with extended objects, so locality is a key point here.

Well, strictly speaking the deflection of light past the Sun is only a one-body problem, since light follows a geodesic which is defined by the curvature (the light itself causes only negligible curvature).  I was referring to problems such as the Earth-Moon system (in RET)... GR doesn't handle them so well.

I was mainly making sure people didn't start wandering down blind alleys anyway - carry on!

What sort of difficulty does GR have with the earth-moon system? 

Trying to calculate the interactions of two extended objects in GR is exceptionally hard and virtually impossible to do exactly - it can only be done by brute force computation.  Extend this to another extended body (say, the oceans or something) and the problem becomes unsolvable.  This is an inherent problem with GR and always has been - all the fancy astrophysical calculations that are used as 'proof' of GR only get away with it since the measurements have relatively large error bars.  Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory that is a massive improvement over those that went before it, but when it can't handle something as familiar as the Earth-Moon system (and that's assuming they're both rigid bodies) without resorting to huge supercomputers... well, let's say general relativists worship it a bit too much in my opinion.

Trying to calculate the interactions of two extended objects in GR is exceptionally hard and virtually impossible to do exactly - it can only be done by brute force computation.  Extend this to another extended body (say, the oceans or something) and the problem becomes unsolvable.  This is an inherent problem with GR and always has been - all the fancy astrophysical calculations that are used as 'proof' of GR only get away with it since the measurements have relatively large error bars.  Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory that is a massive improvement over those that went before it, but when it can't handle something as familiar as the Earth-Moon system (and that's assuming they're both rigid bodies) without resorting to huge supercomputers... well, let's say general relativists worship it a bit too much in my opinion.

To that I'll raise a glass. (or two).

So Newton's relatively simple (if somewhat inaccurate under certain conditions) theory is replaced with a more elegant, but unworkable one.  How is that progress again? 

So Newton's relatively simple (if somewhat inaccurate under certain conditions) theory is replaced with a more elegant, but unworkable one.  How is that progress again? 

GR produces better results than Newton if you use certain assumptions (like treating the Moon as a point mass, for instance).  I define progress as producing theories that get closer to the observed results.  Does that answer your question?