"Falling" towards the earth

But if you agree that there IS an attraction between masses and that those masses fall towards each other along the mentioned geodesics (= created by the bending of spacetime caused by the masses "transforming" it), then why would this not apply to our Earth, which is clearly "a giant mass present in spacetime"?

I don't understand your view on this...

For the "upward acceleration" of the FE doesn't fit in the description of "masses falling toward each other in spacetime geodesics", does it?

Could you elaborate on this a bit more? I'm honestly curious about how you're seeing all of this.

Mmhhmm, but Einstein's gravity is that fictitious force "pulling" us (or at least: "causing the effect of appearing to be pulled") down toward the centre of the mass exerting that fictitious force on us.

While your "gravity", is dark energy pushing Earth's disk and everything on it up into [fill in the blank, because this is kind of hazy to me].
But at the same time FE states that other celestial bodies exert a slight gravitational force, which is then not caused by that same upward accelaration, but by their mass (correct me if I'm seeing things wrong here)?

It has been argued that the Earth is different compared to all other masses in the universe. What we feel as "gravity" in our frame of reference is simply we undergoing acceleration as the accelerating Earth pushes us. We witness the effects of "gravity" when the Earth accelerates up and catches a dropping apple. This has been proven by Einstein's equivalence principle. See: the accelerating elevator experiment.

Gravity, like all other fictitious forces, arises in a non-inertial frame of reference. For example, relative to an accelerating observer on Earth, it seems that you are accelerating as you free-fall. However, in your frame of reference, you feel no acceleration other than the acceleration provided by air resistance, and this can be proven by attaching yourself with an accelerometer. Neglecting air resistance, the accelerometer would read zero. This is because free-fall isn't an acceleration; it appears to be an acceleration relative to a non-inertial frame of reference. Free-fall is actually an inertial motion, according to General Relativity.

Masses can accelerate upward relative to each other and still exert gravitation. The acceleration by Dark Energy is not gravitation: it's used to mimic the effects of gravity in our frame of reference.

2) a. Is there a study / a theory that explains how Dark Energy pushes Earth's disk up?
Meaning: what are the qualities of DE that make it have this effect / make it exert the pushing force? Perhaps it's a massive energy-field constantly expanding in all directions, with Earth "on top of it" => being pushed up?

    b. Is there a study / a theory that explains how DE interacts with the atoms that make up Earth's mass? Meaning: (this probably needs to be explained by chemistry) what interaction between the DE and Earth's atomic structure causes the "pushing up"?

Except that gravitation is universal and observable. That's what makes it worthwhile speculating about what lies beneath.

The DE isn't either of those.

Oh dear.

Except that gravitation is universal and observable. That's what makes it worthwhile speculating about what lies beneath.

The DE isn't either of those.

Oh dear.

Which would mean its not accelerating the mass I just picked up. Therefore not universal, and not accelerating "everything in the universe".

Oh dear.

Dark Energy is both universal and observable. It causes everything in the Universe to accelerate up (except where objects are shielded from it by other objects), and you can observe its effect by picking up anything with mass and then letting it go.

Which is what makes it not universal.

Oh dear.

Quote from: PiratePete on April 14, 2009, 01:20:10 PM

Except that gravitation is universal and observable. That's what makes it worthwhile speculating about what lies beneath.

The DE isn't either of those.

Oh dear.

If you can prove to me the difference between a flat disc accelerating upwards at a constant rate and the observed effects of gravitation, you might have a point.  Otherwise, this is really just a pissing contest.

In which case anything straying behind the moon (like the stars, planets, comets or even the sun! Gosh!) would come crashing down. An unobserved effect.

What a peculiar proposition sir!

Quote from: Matrix on April 14, 2009, 02:23:10 PM

Quote from: PiratePete on April 14, 2009, 01:20:10 PM

Except that gravitation is universal and observable. That's what makes it worthwhile speculating about what lies beneath.

The DE isn't either of those.

Oh dear.

If you can prove to me the difference between a flat disc accelerating upwards at a constant rate and the observed effects of gravitation, you might have a point.  Otherwise, this is really just a pissing contest.

Really? You know this how?

Which means you need to show how your hypothesis would prevent celestial bodies from making a regular habit of smashing into the Moon. Especially given their close proximity to one another.

You need to show how your hypothesis would prevent celestial bodies from making a regular habit of smashing into the Moon. Especially given their close proximity to one another.

They are far enough apart that the Moon does not shield the Sun or the stars from Dark Energy. The smaller an object is, the smaller the volume of space behind it which is shielded.

It is impossible for any object to completely shield another object the same size as itself from Dark Energy. There will always be some part of the second object being accelerated. Besides, the distance behind the Moon which is being shielded is only a few kilometres at its deepest point. It takes a very large object (such as the Earth) to shield a significant volume.

You know all this how?

Once again, you need to show how your hypothesis would prevent celestial bodies from making a regular habit of smashing into the Moon. Especially given their close proximity to one another.

Just stating that it does is not enough.

Er... what am I supposed to say here? I've told you that smaller objects shield smaller volumes, and that the Sun is outside that volume when it passes behind the Moon. This would be explanation enough for most people.

You're using the size, distance and volume of some assumed barrier, as part of your defence of the FE theory, yet you're unable to define exactly how you came to these results.

I also doubt that you're able to show this "shield" effect anywhere else but on earth, which once again calls for non universality.

It is impossible for any object to completely shield another object the same size as itself from Dark Energy. There will always be some part of the second object being accelerated. Besides, the distance behind the Moon which is being shielded is only a few kilometres at its deepest point. It takes a very large object (such as the Earth) to shield a significant volume.

I also doubt that you're able to show this "shield" effect anywhere else but on earth, which once again calls for non universality.

I came to these conclusions after noticing that the Sun does not collide with the Moon every time there is a solar eclipse.

If there were two rocks of equal size, one slightly more upstream than the other, the water would start to converge before reaching the second rock.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on April 14, 2009, 06:39:47 PM

If there were two rocks of equal size, one slightly more upstream than the other, the water would start to converge before reaching the second rock.

In which case the shielding effect is only ever observed on earth, and the hypothesis is non universal. Unlike gravity.

You're using the size, distance and volume of some assumed barrier, as part of your defence of the FE theory, yet you're unable to define exactly how you came to these results.

I came to these conclusions after noticing that the Sun does not collide with the Moon every time there is a solar eclipse.

In which case the shielding effect is only ever observed on earth, and the hypothesis is non universal. Unlike gravity.

Life is only observed on Earth, unlike 'not life' which is observed everywhere else, therefore life does not exist.

Does that sum up your argument?

Quote from: PiratePete on April 15, 2009, 06:04:49 AM

In which case the shielding effect is only ever observed on earth, and the hypothesis is non universal. Unlike gravity.

Life is only observed on Earth, unlike 'not life' which is observed everywhere else, therefore life does not exist.

Does that sum up your argument?

This is crap. What you're basically saying here is that the only things that exists,
are things that you can observe.

Atoms can only be observed individually using special instruments such as the scanning tunneling microscope.
Since you probably don't own such a microscope, and you can't observe the atom, it can't exist right?
You must realize that even though YOU don't see the atom, it has been proved that it exist.
Also, assuming that the earth is the only place where there is life, is very unlikley considering the size of the universe,
the number of galaxies, stars and planets out there.

Think about it.

Quote

This is crap. What you're basically saying here is that the only things that exists,
are things that you can observe.

Atoms can only be observed individually using special instruments such as the scanning tunneling microscope.
Since you probably don't own such a microscope, and you can't observe the atom, it can't exist right?
You must realize that even though YOU don't see the atom, it has been proved that it exist.
Also, assuming that the earth is the only place where there is life, is very unlikley considering the size of the universe,
the number of galaxies, stars and planets out there.

Think about it.

Goes to show how much you know. Atoms were never observed. Only the electron shell has been observed. It has never been proved that atomic matter even exists at all. There are perfectly reasonable alternatives to atomic theory: http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm

So, no, until I see some direct and positive evidence that atoms exist as described in theory, there is no reason to assume that they do.

Quote from: Robosteve on April 14, 2009, 03:36:12 PM

It is impossible for any object to completely shield another object the same size as itself from Dark Energy. There will always be some part of the second object being accelerated. Besides, the distance behind the Moon which is being shielded is only a few kilometres at its deepest point. It takes a very large object (such as the Earth) to shield a significant volume.

Quote from: PiratePete on April 14, 2009, 04:24:20 PM

I also doubt that you're able to show this "shield" effect anywhere else but on earth, which once again calls for non universality.

The easiest way to envision the shielding effect of the dark energy field is to think of it as a river.  A large rock upstream will divert the water around it, and the area directly behind it feels very little force from the river.

If there were two rocks of equal size, one slightly more upstream than the other, the water would start to converge before reaching the second rock.

1) Do you have an idea of what it is that makes Earth different from all other masses in the universe?
Meaning: what qualities of Earth make it so that it doesn't bend spacetime like the other masses, thus that it doesn't produce the same gravitational effects as the stars for instance?
I don't think it can be explained by the effects of the DE that pushes Earth's disk up, as it's also pushing all of the other celestial bodies upward. So, any theory as to what it is then?

2) a. Is there a study / a theory that explains how Dark Energy pushes Earth's disk up?
Meaning: what are the qualities of DE that make it have this effect / make it exert the pushing force? Perhaps it's a massive energy-field constantly expanding in all directions, with Earth "on top of it" => being pushed up?

    b. Is there a study / a theory that explains how DE interacts with the atoms that make up Earth's mass? Meaning: (this probably needs to be explained by chemistry) what interaction between the DE and Earth's atomic structure causes the "pushing up"? Why does the DE hit Earth's mass, instead of going right through, as I reckon that the DE would be less dense than the matter that makes up Earth's disk.

(I'll leave it with these questions for now, so to not demand too much of your time at once.)

And in order to understand FE's view on this, "Gravity" in the first sentence must be replaced by "the upward acceleration of Earth"?

So if I were to jump out of an airplane in the FE-world, I wouldn't actually be falling down, but rather experience the air around me being pushed up as Earth's disk is rushing toward me (= my frame of reference).

And to someone standing on Earth's surface, watching me fall (= the observer being accelerated by Earth => the non-inertial frame of reference (?)) it would only appear as if I'm accelerating toward him, while in FE-reality it's the other way around.

I think I'm getting the hang of the logic behind "inertial and non-inertial frames of reference". Thank you for you clarifying explanation!

However, reading the remark made by PiratePete, there still seem to be a few limitations to your explanation. I will not pretend to fully understand what those limitations are, but it would be interesting to read what the problem exactly is with "the equivalence principle only applying locally" (e.g.: it's the first time that I hear that two simultaneously falling objects will hit the ground closer together; could this also happen on a flat Earth?)

Kind regards,

Does anyone else laugh out loud when you see "Dark Energy"?