# "Falling" towards the earth

• 365 Replies
• 74466 Views

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #240 on: April 27, 2009, 05:30:34 PM »
And if there was a downward force that acted equally on every part of the accelerometer, it would read something different?
It doesn't work that way. Since there is an upward force on the ground acting equally on every part of the accelerometer, wouldn't it read 0? You probably say that it would, but it actually reads 1g. What's it doing is this: the spring, attached to you while standing, stretches as the mass falls and the device reads a value. It reads 0 in free-fall for a reason: Free-fall is an inertial frame, where you fall at the same rate as the accelerometer. The spring does not stretch so it does not read a value. If there is a downward force, there seems to be no difference as you would still accelerate at the same rate as the accelerometer; however, it's the same thing as if there is no downward force. But we know there are no downward forces since we are just undergoing geodesics, and there is no downward force of gravity in general relativity. That's why both situations are equivalent.

It reads zero in free fall because all the components which make up an accelerometer are accelerating at the same rate. Gravity, y'see, is universal.
Tell that to Einstein.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 07:29:14 PM by Jack »

?

#### astrofan

• 48
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #241 on: April 27, 2009, 05:46:07 PM »
It reads zero in free fall because all the components which make up an accelerometer are accelerating at the same rate. Gravity, y'see, is universal.
Tell that to Einstein.

I suspect Einstein was trolling you.

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #242 on: April 27, 2009, 05:51:34 PM »
As quoted by Matrix and others, an accelerometer can never measure this "force of gravity" directly. According to General Relativity, an accelerometer would measure acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference (free-fall), where the ground would be a non-inertial frame of reference.

?

#### astrofan

• 48
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #243 on: April 27, 2009, 05:58:59 PM »
As quoted by Matrix and others, an accelerometer can never measure this "force of gravity" directly. According to General Relativity, an accelerometer would measure acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference (free-fall), where the ground would be a non-inertial frame of reference.

Exactly. In freefall there is nothing to measure the acceleration against (except itself perhaps), so you get a zero value.

This doesn't mean there's no downward force, mearly that all forces are equal (or zero)

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #244 on: April 27, 2009, 06:22:01 PM »
Exactly. In freefall there is nothing to measure the acceleration against (except itself perhaps), so you get a zero value.
That's because free-fall is an inertial motion along geodesics.

This doesn't mean there's no downward force, mearly that all forces are equal (or zero)
You're mistaken. Why would it read 1g on the ground, as you say, since every part of it is accelerating upward equally, making it zero? It doesn't measure the force of gravity directly because both me and the accelerometer are accelerating at the same rate, not that every part of it is accelerating at the same rate. The spring does not stretch and so the device does not read a value. Even if there is a downward force, the situation would still be the same. That's why they are equivalent.

However, I'm gonna say this one more time: there is no downward force. In RE, we follow geodesics; we don't need a downward force! An accelerometer would only acceleration from real forces such as drag and the upward force. At the surface it would read 1g. In free-fall, neglecting air resistance, it would read 0. With air resistance, it would read a value. It would never read the force of gravity.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 07:39:16 PM by Jack »

?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #245 on: April 28, 2009, 05:37:25 AM »
Quote
But we know there are no downward forces since we are just undergoing geodesics, and there is no downward force of gravity in general relativity.

I wouldn't say that we know there are no downwards forces. Just because general relativity fits the observations we currently have (and even that's questionable, things like galaxies don't behave like you would expect them to under general relativity) doesn't mean the theory is absolutely correct, and it doesn't mean that it must be an upwards acceleration, not a downwards force.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #246 on: April 28, 2009, 06:37:56 AM »

That's because your source supports my statement.

No it doesn't.

Because General Relativity already disproved Newtonian gravity.

No it didn't.

There is such thing as a more correct theory

No there isn't.

Gravity is a theory, not a law.

No it isn't.  Gravity is a law.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Newton's gravity has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

Really?

Yes.

we [...] assume

We verify.

What is a force of acceleration? He says force of gravity = proper acceleration, which means we don't need gravity.

No it doesn't.

Your source also backs this up.

No it doesn't.

READ THE BOLD PART AGAIN. The reason why gravity must be subtracted is because with gravity, we would be at rest due to balanced forces from the upward force. Einstein showed that there is no downward force, which leaves the upward force. Thus, with only the upward force, an accelerometer would read 1g on the ground. Man, talk about illiteracy.

This is a lie.  Einstein never showed there is no downward force.  This is a complete baldface lie.

Illiteracy means the inability to read.  I have proved that I can read.  Please stop lying - and trolling.  The rules of the forum are that you agree not to post information which is false.  By posting information that is false, you are in violation of thee rules.  Please go away.

No, he predicted free-fall as an acceleration due to gravity.

No he didn't.  Qoutes?  Links?  Cites?  Evidence?  I didn't think so.

Yeah, so what is a "force of acceleration"?

Oh geeze.  It is the force subjected to an unmotorized body or mass that is forced to maintain a position with a body or mass who's speed is increasing through a given space.  Damn, I can't believe you didn't know this.

Gravity is not a law. Gravity is a fictitious force.

Gravity is not a fictitious force.  Gravity is a law.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Now, let's see yours.  Oh but wait, you want me to assume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Do you feel stupid now?

"In the context of classical theories of gravitation, the speed of gravity refers to the speed at which a gravitational field propagates."

As is clearly noted, which you seem to have difficulty grasping, is that "speed of gravity" is a fictitious synonym used to describe the speed at which a gravitational field propagates.  Must I explain the huge difference?

Newton's equations must require that gravity propagates information instantaneously.

What does this have to do with whether gravity itself exists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_Principle
That source proved that fictitious force of gravity = proper acceleration. It's probably too technical for your limited knowledge to comprehend.

Wikipedia does not "prove" a damn thing.  It only presents information.  Wikipedia is formuated by people who are far less intelligent than Albert Einstein.

Gravity doesn't exist. Please lay off that Newton book from the 16th century.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #247 on: April 28, 2009, 06:41:49 AM »
Quote
Because I'm not accelerating downward when falling.

I thought the two were equivalent? How can you tell?
They are equivalent. Einstein already showed that we aren't accelerating downward, but merely undergoing inertial motion as we fall. In RE, you travel along geodesics of space-time during free-fall, which means there is no downward acceleration. In FE, same thing, you undergo inertial motion during free-fall as the Earth accelerates up toward you. There is no downward force acting on you, so you can leave out the force and use the upward acceleration instead.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #248 on: April 28, 2009, 06:43:03 AM »
And if there was a downward force that acted equally on every part of the accelerometer, it would read something different?
It doesn't work that way. Since there is an upward force on the ground acting equally on every part of the accelerometer, wouldn't it read 0?

There is no upward force on the ground.

Tell that to Einstein.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #249 on: April 28, 2009, 06:46:32 AM »
As quoted by Matrix and others, an accelerometer can never measure this "force of gravity" directly.

The force of gravity while resting on the earth's surface is exactly 1 g.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #250 on: April 28, 2009, 06:49:26 AM »

You're mistaken. Why would it read 1g on the ground, as you say, since every part of it is accelerating upward equally, making it zero?

The earth is not accelerating upwards, that's why.  We are being forced against the earth at the force of exactly 1 g.

However, I'm gonna say this one more time: there is no downward force.

And I'm going to say this one more time:  You have ZERO evidence of this.  None.  Zip, ziltch, ZERO!

?

#### Dr Matrix

• 4312
• In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #251 on: April 28, 2009, 09:50:43 AM »

Quoted for irony.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #252 on: April 28, 2009, 01:16:15 PM »

Quoted for irony.

I see you don't care to answer any of my questions since it would destroy your FE theory.

?

#### Dr Matrix

• 4312
• In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #253 on: April 28, 2009, 01:21:16 PM »
I see you don't care to answer any of my questions since it would destroy your FE theory.

No, I don't answer your questions (any more) since either you are a troll, or you simply don't read the replies that you receive. If you do read them, you either completely miss the point or refuse to engage the poster, instead simply repeating yourself.

I have no interest in someone so blinkered and wilfully ignorant that they won't even try to understand the basics of conventional (round Earth) physics, let alone debate it at a meaningful enough level to make a flat Earth discussion interesting.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #254 on: April 28, 2009, 01:35:22 PM »
No it doesn't.

No it didn't.
Yes.

There is such thing as a more correct theory

No there isn't.
Yes there is.

How ironic.

No it isn't.  Gravity is a law.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
Gravity was, is, and never will be a law.

Newton's gravity has been proven false.

No it hasn't.
Yes it has. You're just too ignorant to see it.

Yes.

we [...] assume

We verify.
And his predictions were verified by countless experiments. See: Tests for General Relativity.

What is a force of acceleration? He says force of gravity = proper acceleration, which means we don't need gravity.

No it doesn't.
Yes it does.

Your source also backs this up.

No it doesn't.
Yes it does.

READ THE BOLD PART AGAIN. The reason why gravity must be subtracted is because with gravity, we would be at rest due to balanced forces from the upward force. Einstein showed that there is no downward force, which leaves the upward force. Thus, with only the upward force, an accelerometer would read 1g on the ground. Man, talk about illiteracy.

This is a lie.  Einstein never showed there is no downward force.  This is a complete baldface lie.
facepalm.jpg

Illiteracy means the inability to read.  I have proved that I can read.  Please stop lying - and trolling.  The rules of the forum are that you agree not to post information which is false.  By posting information that is false, you are in violation of thee rules.  Please go away.

No he didn't.  Qoutes?  Links?  Cites?  Evidence?  I didn't think so.
Read the quote I just gave you.

Oh geeze.  It is the force subjected to an unmotorized body or mass that is forced to maintain a position with a body or mass who's speed is increasing through a given space.  Damn, I can't believe you didn't know this.
Yeah, that's called a "force", not a "force of acceleration." Stop making shits up.

Gravity is not a fictitious force.  Gravity is a law.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Now, let's see yours.  Oh but wait, you want me to assume.
Gravity is a fictitious force. General Relativity says so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Do you feel stupid now?

"In the context of classical theories of gravitation, the speed of gravity refers to the speed at which a gravitational field propagates."

As is clearly noted, which you seem to have difficulty grasping, is that "speed of gravity" is a fictitious synonym used to describe the speed at which a gravitational field propagates.  Must I explain the huge difference?
Einstein predicted that gravitation propagates at the speed of light due to gravitational waves. The first sentence says that there is also a finite speed for gravity. Read. Also, you forgot to read the whole thing.

Quote
General relativity predicts that gravitational radiation should exist and propagate as a wave at the speed of light.

Newton's equations must require that gravity propagates information instantaneously.

What does this have to do with whether gravity itself exists?
It proves that Newton's theory is false; His force of gravity cannot travel at finite speed. No information can travel instantaneously, therefore it gravity can't exist. We use Einstein's theory instead. Also, try using Newton's equations to calculate the gravitational field of a photon. You can't, which means Newton was wrong, yet again.

It's funny, as Newton also was not very comfortable with his own theory's action at a distance:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Newton's reservations

While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations implied. In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

Wikipedia does not "prove" a damn thing.  It only presents information.  Wikipedia is formuated by people who are far less intelligent than Albert Einstein.
This is coming from someone who kept using wikipedia to refute me.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
Gravity was, is, and never will be a law.

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #255 on: April 28, 2009, 01:38:44 PM »
No, I'm using Einstein's theory to prove your ignorance.

The earth is not accelerating upwards, that's why.  We are being forced against the earth at the force of exactly 1 g.
Nope.

There is no upward force on the ground.
Yes there is.

And I'm going to say this one more time:  You have ZERO evidence of this.  None.  Zip, ziltch, ZERO!

The force of gravity while resting on the earth's surface is exactly 1 g.
This is just made of fail.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 04:11:15 PM by Jack »

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #256 on: April 28, 2009, 03:45:05 PM »
I see you don't care to answer any of my questions since it would destroy your FE theory.

No, I don't answer your questions (any more) since either you are a troll, or you simply don't read the replies that you receive. If you do read them, you either completely miss the point or refuse to engage the poster, instead simply repeating yourself.

I have no interest in someone so blinkered and wilfully ignorant that they won't even try to understand the basics of conventional (round Earth) physics, let alone debate it at a meaningful enough level to make a flat Earth discussion interesting.

Evasion noted.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #257 on: April 28, 2009, 04:42:12 PM »

Yes.

No.

There is such thing as a more correct theory

No there isn't.

Yes there is.

No there isn't.

How ironic.

Yes, how ironic.

No it isn't.  Gravity is a law.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Gravity was, is, and never will be a law.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html  <------ Place your arrow over this link and click your left mouse button and read the big giant letters called a "topic."

Newton's gravity has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

Yes it has. You're just too ignorant to see it.

No it hasn't.  You're too ignorant to click on a link.

And his predictions were verified by countless experiments. See: Tests for General Relativity.

I just did.  General relativity is a theory.  Gravitation is a law.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

What was that?  Gravity must be subtracted?  I thought you didn't believe in gravity.  Now you're contradicting your own words.  Beautiful!

No he didn't.  Quotes?  Links?  Cites?  Evidence?  I didn't think so.

Read the quote I just gave you.

That's what I thought.  You have nothing.

Yeah, that's called a "force", not a "force of acceleration." Stop making shits up.

You really don't know what you're saying from sentence to sentence, do you?  Isn't there a rule against using profanity in this forum?

Gravity is not a fictitious force.  Gravity is a law.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Now, let's see yours.  Oh but wait, you want me to assume.

Gravity is a fictitious force. General Relativity says so.

General relativity is a theory, and it does not claim that gravity (which is a law) is a fictitious force.  Please stop lying.

Einstein predicted that gravitation propagates at the speed of light due to gravitational waves. The first sentence says that there is also a finite speed for gravity. Read. Also, you forgot to read the whole thing.

Learn the meaning of the words "propagate" and "predicted."  Then learn the meaning of the word "law."

General relativity predicts that gravitational radiation should exist and propagate as a wave at the speed of light.

But you don't believe in gravity.

Newton's equations must require that gravity propagates information instantaneously.  It proves that Newton's theory is false; His force of gravity cannot travel at finite speed. No information can travel instantaneously, therefore it gravity can't exist.

No that's not what it means.  You are stuck on an "all or nothing" senerio.

A theory does not prove a law incorrect.  Learn the meaning of the word "theory."

Also, try using Newton's equations to calculate the gravitational field of a photon. You can't, which means Newton was wrong, yet again.

Perhaps, but it doesn't prove gravity doesn't exist.

Wikipedia does not "prove" a damn thing.  It only presents information.  Wikipedia is formuated by people who are far less intelligent than Albert Einstein.

This is coming from someone who kept using wikipedia to refute me.

I didn't claim to be "proving" anything with Wikipedia, but you did.  Talk about irony.

Gravity was, is, and never will be a law.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #258 on: April 28, 2009, 04:52:22 PM »

No, I'm using Einstein's theory to prove your ignorance.

Eintstein's theory of what, gravity?  Gravity is a law, not a theory.

Nope.

Yep

And I'm going to say this one more time:  You have ZERO evidence of this.  None.  Zip, ziltch, ZERO!

I've flown a skydiving plane with a g meter.  I've performed spiraling turns and read the meter at 4.5, and I've caused jumpers to float in the air and read 0.  They're kind of neat, really.  Now, what is your point exactly?

The force of gravity while resting on the earth's surface is exactly 1 g.

This is just made of fail.

Explain.

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #259 on: April 28, 2009, 06:26:07 PM »
Yes, how ironic.
Yes, how ironic that you're calling me trolling, when I'm actually doing the opposite by teaching you some real physics.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
And?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html  <------ Place your arrow over this link and click your left mouse button and read the big giant letters called a "topic."
And?

No it hasn't.  You're too ignorant to click on a link.
I did, and it tells me that General Relativity is the better theory in place of Newton's gravity. Click the "Relativity Theory." Your own source says you're too ignorant to accept the fact that physics has changed since the 1900s.

I just did.  General relativity is a theory.  Gravitation is a law.
Both are theories.

It tells me that gravity is a fictitious force.

What was that?  Gravity must be subtracted?  I thought you didn't believe in gravity.  Now you're contradicting your own words.  Beautiful!
Yeah, gravity must be substracted so the accelerometer can read only the upward force. If it can be subtracted and disappeared so easily, how can it be a force?

That's what I thought.  You have nothing.

You really don't know what you're saying from sentence to sentence, do you?
Yeah, I know what's a force and what's an acceleration. Do you?

General relativity is a theory, and it does not claim that gravity (which is a law) is a fictitious force.  Please stop lying.
The equivalence principle in GR states gravity is the same thing as proper acceleration, which means gravity is not really a real force. How's that lying?

Learn the meaning of the words "propagate" and "predicted."  Then learn the meaning of the word "law."
And?

General relativity predicts that gravitational radiation should exist and propagate as a wave at the speed of light.

But you don't believe in gravity.

Newton's equations must require that gravity propagates information instantaneously.  It proves that Newton's theory is false; His force of gravity cannot travel at finite speed. No information can travel instantaneously, therefore it gravity can't exist.

No that's not what it means.  You are stuck on an "all or nothing" senerio.
Yes that's what it means. Gravity propagates instantaneously. That's magic.

A theory does not prove a law incorrect.  Learn the meaning of the word "theory."
Uh, no. You're just making your own definition of law. A law of physics is just the same as another other theory. If a law of physics cannot be proven incorrect, it is unfalsifiable and therefore not science. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a theory, and it has been contradicted and thus disproved by General Relativity when accounting large gravitational fields and relativistic speeds. Even your source says so.

Also, try using Newton's equations to calculate the gravitational field of a photon. You can't, which means Newton was wrong, yet again.

Perhaps, but it doesn't prove gravity doesn't exist.
So gravity can disappear whenever it wants to? I thought it's universal?

I didn't claim to be "proving" anything with Wikipedia, but you did.  Talk about irony.
Really?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27940.msg685658#msg685658.

I clicked, and?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 11:20:51 PM by Jack »

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #260 on: April 28, 2009, 06:40:15 PM »
Eintstein's theory of what, gravity?
Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Gravity is a law, not a theory.
...

I've flown a skydiving plane with a g meter.  I've performed spiraling turns and read the meter at 4.5, and I've caused jumpers to float in the air and read 0.  They're kind of neat, really.  Now, what is your point exactly?
Free-fall is an inertial frame along geodesics of space-time. No acceleration relative to free-fall. No downward forces are detected. The spring does not stretch. Accelerometer reads 0.

The force of gravity while resting on the earth's surface is exactly 1 g.

This is just made of fail.

Explain.
It's the upward force that gives you 1g according to an accelerometer, not gravity.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 11:18:38 PM by Jack »

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #261 on: April 29, 2009, 08:53:56 AM »
Yes, how ironic that you're calling me trolling, when I'm actually doing the opposite by teaching you some real physics.

Then explain these physics, teacher:

1.  How can a directional radio signal pointed East propagate around the earth and be received clearly by a receiver positioned 1500 miles West of the transmitter pointed West, but pointed East the receiver loses the signal?  How is this physically possible with a flat earth?

2.  How can two people, one standing on the earth where it is 12:00 noon and the other standing on the earth where it is 12:00 midnight feel the same downward forces if the earth is flat?

3.  How can an airplane fly from New York to London when it is daylight in New York and simaltaniously dark in London without performing a split S maneuver as it reaches the edge of the earth?

4.  Why is it that nobody has even located the edge of the earth when we have cruise ships that travel the world while packed full of passengers?

You see, those are only a few questions that you absolutely refuse to answer since it would force you to face the truth.

Now give me some scientific answers backed up with evidence or admit you're full of crap.

Both are theories.

I see you STILL haven't clicked on this link.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html  <------- Left mouse button here

It tells me that gravity is a fictitious force.

Where exactly?  Yes, I read it.  It's not there.  Therefore don't respond by saying "read the link."  Point out exactly where it says gravity is a fictitious force.

Yeah, gravity must be substracted so the accelerometer can read only the upward force.

That's not what it says.  It says gravity must be subtracted so only acceleration due to motion alone can be measured.  Read it again.

If it can be subtracted and disappeared so easily, how can it be a force?

Because gravity is a force.

Then how could I possibly be responding if I'm not reading?

Yeah, I know what's a force and what's an acceleration. Do you?

Yes I do, however for some reason you believe that a zero reading on an accelerometer is a force.  You just stated this.

The equivalence principle in GR states gravity is the same thing as proper acceleration, which means gravity is not really a real force. How's that lying?

Because that's not what it says.

Yes that's what it means. Gravity propagates instantaneously. That's magic.

But you stated in an earlier message that nothing could possibly propagate instantaniously.  You really don't know what you're saying from day to day.

Uh, no. You're just making your own definition of law. A law of physics is just the same as another other theory.

(Be sure to read the bold parts)

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

If a law of physics cannot be proven incorrect, it is unfalsifiable and therefore not science.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a theory,

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

and it has been contradicted and thus disproved by General Relativity

General relativity is a theory.  A theory does not prove a law incorrect.

Also, try using Newton's equations to calculate the gravitational field of a photon. You can't, which means Newton was wrong, yet again.

So gravity can disappear whenever it wants to? I thought it's universal?

If I am unable to measure the gravitation field of  photon, it doesn't mean that field doesn't exist.  Absense of evidence does not constitute evidence of absense.

Actually, there are only a few places in space where neutral gravity exists.  All other places objects are pulled one way or another due to the gravitational fields of the stars and planets.  This is why the space shuttle and satellites must orbit the earth, so the force of gravity is constant with the roundness of the earth and the objects remain at the same altitude.  The way the shuttle comes back down is by turning around and firing thrusters to slow it's horizontal speed so gravity then overcomes forward speed and the orbiter sinks back down into the atmosphere.  Of course, if you believe the shuttle program is a bunch of phony balogna, then explain how Columbia scattered peices parts all across Southern Texas as it broke up.  How is it aerodynamically possible for the orbiter to remain aloft for 600 miles or so as it crumbles into a million pieces?  And what is this streaking across the sky?  Do you see it breaking up?  How can it continue on a straight path as it breaks up?

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #262 on: April 29, 2009, 09:06:28 AM »

Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Free-fall is an inertial frame along geodesics of space-time. No acceleration relative to free-fall. No downward forces are detected. The spring does not stretch. Accelerometer reads 0.

Only if I jump out of a hot air balloon where there is no air resistance, and then only until I begin to feel air resistance.  It then will slowly revert back to a reading of 1.  If I jump out of an airplane that is already travelling at terminal velocity, the accelerometer will always read one.  If I jump out of an airplane travelling 2400 MPH, the accelerometer will read 20 and I won't be making it to the beer party that night.

It's the upward force that gives you 1g according to an accelerometer, not gravity.

Which only leads back the the 12:00 noon / 12:00 midnight scenerio which you refuse to answer.

Keep trying, teacher.

?

#### Dr Matrix

• 4312
• In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #263 on: April 29, 2009, 09:36:28 AM »
You know that people only live on the upwards-facing surface of the FE disc, right?  No-one lives on the 'underside'.  You seem to be confused on this point at times.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

#### niceguybut

• 184
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #264 on: April 29, 2009, 09:59:12 AM »
You know that people only live on the upwards-facing surface of the FE disc, right?  No-one lives on the 'underside'.

Well, that's the current hypothesis any way.
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

?

#### Dr Matrix

• 4312
• In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #265 on: April 29, 2009, 10:03:46 AM »
Fair point.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #266 on: April 29, 2009, 12:23:37 PM »
You know that people only live on the upwards-facing surface of the FE disc, right?  No-one lives on the 'underside'.  You seem to be confused on this point at times.

In this senerio, it would be impossible for the sun to shine in America and be dark in China.  However, when it is 12:00 noon in America, it will be 12:00 midnight in China.  How could this possibly be with a flat earth?  Either all of mankind would have to be experiencing sunshine or darkness.  There couldn't possibly be daylight in America and darkness in China with a FE.

How do you explain that, Einstein?

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #267 on: April 29, 2009, 01:11:37 PM »
To bgamelson,

I had enough. You are totally ignorant. I assumed that you might know a bit of modern physics, but I was wrong. You do not know what has changed in physics since the age of rationalism and the beginning of the 19th century. I really cannot reason with you, since you keep spouting the same crap at a constant rate. I am fine with your intention to be a close-minded idiot. You cannot even read your own sources, and you are willing to ignore the relativity part of your source on Newton's law of gravity. That part is absolutely consistent with my argument.

You think somehow Newton's theory became a law and therefore unfalsifiable or cannot be disproved. You stated, "a theory cannot prove a law incorrect." That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Do you know what falsifiability means? Any theory or law that is unfalsifiable is pseudoscience, which is something that can't be tested or falsified. Your own source says that Newton's three laws are only approximately correct when accounting relativistic speeds, as shown by Special Relativity. See, there is an error in Newton's laws. I do not care if you are not willing the accept the fact that Einstein already saw a huge error in Newton's theory when accounting large gravitational fields and relativistic effects. For example, Newton's theory cannot accurately calculate Mercury's perihelion shift, while Einstein's theory can. It was the one of the first few experiments to verify General Relativity. There, Newton's theory or "law" is falsified. That is real science.

In addition, you're still clueless about classical mechanics. When it has been shown that the upward force is what gives us 1g according to an accelerometer, you stated that it's just gravity. Do you have anymore bullshits that you can show us? No accelerometers can measure or sense the force of gravity directly! An accelerometer can only measure acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference. When we accelerate downward by the force of gravity, we accelerate at the same rate as the accelerometer. The reason why an accelerometer can detect the upward force is because the ground is pushing against us, preventing us from accelerating downward further. The end part of the spring attaches to us, while the mass at the other end of the spring continues to fall. The spring stretches and therefore the accelerometer reads a value. An accelerometer can also detect the drag force. As we fall, the force of drag accelerates us up. There is an acceleration relative to free-fall: the mass at the end of the spring continues to fall, while we accelerate up. The spring stretches and the accelerometer reads a value.

However, it has been shown by General Relativity that free-fall is actually an inertial frame. In RE, when an object free-falls, it just follows geodesics or straight lines in space-time. No acceleration or downward force is present in this scenario. Geodesic deviation occurs when two objects began to accelerate apart or toward each other due to tidal effects by space-time distortions, but relative to itself, the object is still undergoing inertial motion. When we're talking about FE, the objects undergo constant velocity the moment they leave the surface, and the Earth accelerates up to catch them, just as Einstein's theory predicted. Both models are completely consistent to each other.

Spend less time on the internet and more time on your high school work.

Jack

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #268 on: April 29, 2009, 04:11:19 PM »
To bgamelson,

I see you don't care to answer any of my questions that would force you to face the truth, and apparantly this is your way of bowing out in order to avoid the inevitable.

Fair enough.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

?

#### bgamelson

• 172
##### Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« Reply #269 on: April 30, 2009, 08:28:11 AM »
To bgamelson,

You are totally ignorant.

I am honored that my logic has reduced you to childish name calling.

I assumed that you might know a bit of modern physics, but I was wrong.

Your problem is you want to twist and contort modern physics.

You do not know what has changed in physics since the age of rationalism and the beginning of the 19th century.

In the 19th century sir, it has been proved the earth is round.

I really cannot reason with you, since you keep spouting the same crap at a constant rate.

Talk about irony, you are describing yourself.  You keep denying science in favor of your twisted logic and you have yet to bring forth any evidence that will support a FE.  None.

I am fine with your intention to be a close-minded idiot.

Yes, since you cannot win an debate with me, all you have left is name calling.

My sources support a round earth.  Your sources support a round earth, yet you want me to believe your sources mean somethig other than what they say.

and you are willing to ignore the relativity part of your source on Newton's law of gravity.

Yet on the very next breath you will deny gravity exists and claim it is somehow "fictitious."

That part is absolutely consistent with my argument.

No it is not.  That is the problem.  Your sources do not support your argument.

You think somehow Newton's theory became a law and therefore unfalsifiable or cannot be disproved.

That is correct, and I haver brought out scientific links, not Wikipedia, scientific links that prove Newtow's LAW of gravity and you will stare the sun in the face and claim it is not shining.  Totally unbelievable.

You stated, "a theory cannot prove a law incorrect." That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

That is because you don't know the difference between a theory and a law.

Do you know what falsifiability means?

Yes.  Do you know what "Law" means?

Any theory or law that is unfalsifiable is pseudoscience, which is something that can't be tested or falsified.

WRONG!!

A pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative  science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.

This describes your ignorant theory of a flat earth because no current science or scientific experiments have supprted this twisted belief.  Pseudoscience is claiming science says one thing but means another.  This is exactly what you have been attempting by claiming gravity does not exist and instead the earth accelerates.

Then you refuse to answer simple questions that would totally destroy your FE theory because you simply don't want to face the truth.

Your own source says that Newton's three laws are only approximately correct when accounting relativistic speeds, as shown by Special Relativity. See, there is an error in Newton's laws. I do not care if you are not willing the accept the fact that Einstein already saw a huge error in Newton's theory when accounting large gravitational fields and relativistic effects. For example, Newton's theory cannot accurately calculate Mercury's perihelion shift, while Einstein's theory can. It was the one of the first few experiments to verify General Relativity. There, Newton's theory or "law" is falsified. That is real science.

There you go!  It does not means Newton's law is falsified.  It means there was more information available and Newton didn't have the equipment to study this.  It does not mean Newton was totally wrong and it does not mean gravity does not exist and it does not mean the earth is flat.

Words of a troll.

When it has been shown that the upward force is what gives us 1g according to an accelerometer,

WRONG!!  This has not been shown to be an upward force.  This is your twisted logic and your attempts to conclude that science says one thing but actually means another.  There is absolutely NO science that shows an upward force of the earth.  None.  These are merely your words inserted into an already existing science.  Then I bring out a scientific link that explains that this 1 g idication must be eliminated in order to measure acceleration by motion alone and you instantly deny that and claim it really means the earth is accelerating when it doesn't say this anywhere.  Do you know what "eliminated" means?  It means the 1 g must be read as zero acceleration since GRAVITY is what give us the 1 g indication.

you stated that it's just gravity. Do you have anymore bullshits that you can show us?

No, I have scientif links which you flatly deny. calling them "bullshit" in favor of your twisted logic which cannot be supported by any scientific link.

No accelerometers can measure or sense the force of gravity directly! An accelerometer can only measure acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference.

According to the gravitational force of the earth which is different than the gravitational force of the moon.  In this case, an accelerometer would have to either be recalibrated or 1/3 g read as 1 g.  Any more science lessons, teacher?

When we accelerate downward by the force of gravity, we accelerate at the same rate as the accelerometer. The reason why an accelerometer can detect the upward force is because the ground is pushing against us, preventing us from accelerating downward further.

This makes absolutely no sense at all and is not supported by any scientific facts.  None.  This is merely your made up crap that you can't support.

As we fall, the force of drag accelerates us up.

WRONG!!  When we fall, we fall down, not up.

There is an acceleration relative to free-fall: the mass at the end of the spring continues to fall, while we accelerate up.

WRONG!!  When we fall, we fall down, not up.

However, it has been shown by General Relativity that free-fall is actually an inertial frame. In RE, when an object free-falls, it just follows geodesics or straight lines in space-time. No acceleration or downward force is present in this scenario.

There you go!  You claim science says one thing but means another.

When we're talking about FE, the objects undergo constant velocity the moment they leave the surface, and the Earth accelerates up to catch them, just as Einstein's theory predicted.

The big problem is, Einstein's theory did not predict this.  No science you can bring forth can support this either.

Spend less time on the internet and more time on your high school work.

I graduated from High School in 1977.  It is also a fact that my spelling and grammar is far superior than yours

Now then, would you like to discuss radio waves?  So far you have refused to touch onto that subject, or to attempt to explain how they make it around the earth.