Questions regarding "universal acceleration"

What are they accelerating in reference to?  You can only accelerate in reference to another object.

Also, it's been suggested that matter does not exert gravity.  If this is true, how do we explain "Attraction of Mountains", when a plumb bob is slightly attracted by a large mass (ie a mountain)?  Especially when the plumb bob is made of a material not affected by EMF (Cannot be explained by magnetism)?  

Quote from: "Megaboz"

What are they accelerating in reference to?  You can only accelerate in reference to another object.

I'm not sure I agree with this; gravity is acceleration without reference.

Quote

Also, it's been suggested that matter does not exert gravity.  If this is true, how do we explain "Attraction of Mountains", when a plumb bob is slightly attracted by a large mass (ie a mountain)?  Especially when the plumb bob is made of a material not affected by EMF (Cannot be explained by magnetism)?  

The most obvious argument is that a plumbob is not attracted by mountains, and whoever thinks they are is crazy.

How exactly would you perform an experiment to demonstrate this phenomenon? As far as I know, the only way to measure a consistant referential "down" on earth is to use gravity, and assume that the point gravity is accelerating you towards is the center of the earth. How do you know the plumbob is skewed when you're next to the mountain if you have no other means of comparing it to "down"?

In the FAQ, it mentions that the Earth, and all stars, planets, moons, etc in the universe are accelerating 9.8 m/s^2, which gives the same effect as gravity.

What are they accelerating in reference to?  You can only accelerate in reference to another object, but if the entire universe is moving, what is the reference point?

Quote from: "Megaboz"

In the FAQ, it mentions that the Earth, and all stars, planets, moons, etc in the universe are accelerating 9.8 m/s^2, which gives the same effect as gravity.

What are they accelerating in reference to?  You can only accelerate in reference to another object, but if the entire universe is moving, what is the reference point?

The only reason we say the rest of the universe is accelerating is because if the earth is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, and we aren't getting any closer the stars, other planets, and galaxies. They must be accelerating too.

Well, if they're all accelerating - what are they all accelerating in reference to?

How exactly would you perform an experiment to demonstrate this phenomenon? As far as I know, the only way to measure a consistant referential "down" on earth is to use gravity, and assume that the point gravity is accelerating you towards is the center of the earth. How do you know the plumbob is skewed when you're next to the mountain if you have no other means of comparing it to "down"?

If we're standing on the planet, and the planet is accelerating, then we are also accelerating, hence we can't be the frame of reference, the frame of reference must be something that appears to be "moving away from us", to use laymen's terms.[/quote

Right. But since we know we are accelerating, and we can't measure our acceleration relative to them, they must be accelerating as well.

When i said "Us", I didn't actually mean their acceleration was relative to us. I meant their acceleration was relative to the same frame of reference our acceleration is relative to.

Right. But since we know we are accelerating, and we can't measure our acceleration relative to them, they must be accelerating as well.

You guys may have not seen the edit as I wasn't clear with my question - I changed it to:  "how do we know we're accelerating (not due to gravity)?"

What Megaboz and I (and others, I'm sure) would like to know though is: what scientific data supports this concept?  

Quote from: "psouza4"

What Megaboz and I (and others, I'm sure) would like to know though is: what scientific data supports this concept?

Newton's Laws of motion.

Quote from: "psouza4"

What Megaboz and I (and others, I'm sure) would like to know though is: what scientific data supports this concept?  

Newton's Laws of motion.

Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.

Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.

This statement does not contribute to the debate.  FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.

I agree completely.  Like I said in my previous post, both work - however, it is possible and has been shown that matter exerts gravity, as can be shown with a plumb bob.  It is impossible for the entire Universe to be accelerating with no reference - not only because the physics don't work, but simply because it doesn't even make sense.  The universe is defined by what exists.   If everything that exists is accelerating on the same vector, then what is it accelerating in reference to?  It doesn't make any sense, whereas gravity makes perfect sense and has been demonstrated.

I am not a FE supporter, but all this debate about a reference frame for acceleration can be dissolved easily if you consider that everything is accelerating away from a point of origin, such as an explosion ("Big Bang") and will continue to drift at the same rate in the vacuum of space.  For that matter, calling it acceleration is misleading because by definition, it is not -- it is maintaining the same velocity without friction or other forces acting to slow or change the Earth's trajectory.  It's the possibility of this motion/velocity that FE'ers believe provides the Earth with the gravity-like force that keeps us pinned to its surface.

Quote from: "psouza4"

This statement does not contribute to the debate.  FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and

Want evidence?  Take whatever you have near your computer and hold it in your hand.  Now drop it.  Did it fall to the ground?  There you go - acceleration.

When I jump up, I land back on the ground.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "psouza4"

This statement does not contribute to the debate.  FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and

Want evidence?  Take whatever you have near your computer and hold it in your hand.  Now drop it.  Did it fall to the ground?  There you go - acceleration.

It's possible that the item that fell to the ground either did so because the ground's velocity moved up to meet it (TE's accelleration) or because the mass of the ground under the item pulled it down (RE's gravity)..

Quote from: "Megaboz"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Newton's laws apply exactly the same way whether we are talking about RE/gravity or FE/acceleration.

I agree completely.  Like I said in my previous post, both work - however, it is possible and has been shown that matter exerts gravity, as can be shown with a plumb bob.  It is impossible for the entire Universe to be accelerating with no reference - not only because the physics don't work, but simply because it doesn't even make sense.  The universe is defined by what exists.   If everything that exists is accelerating on the same vector, then what is it accelerating in reference to?  It doesn't make any sense, whereas gravity makes perfect sense and has been demonstrated.

I am not a FE supporter, but all this debate about a reference frame for acceleration can be dissolved easily if you consider that everything is accelerating away from a point of origin, such as an explosion ("Big Bang") and will continue to drift at the same rate in the vacuum of space.  For that matter, calling it acceleration is misleading because by definition, it is not -- it is maintaining the same velocity without friction or other forces acting to slow or change the Earth's trajectory.  It's the possibility of this motion/velocity that FE'ers believe provides the Earth with the gravity-like force that keeps us pinned to its surface.

Quote from: "psouza4"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "psouza4"

This statement does not contribute to the debate.  FE'ers and sympathizers, please respond to the question at hand regarding both (a) data/evidence supporting accelleration as opposed to mass and gravity and

Want evidence?  Take whatever you have near your computer and hold it in your hand.  Now drop it.  Did it fall to the ground?  There you go - acceleration.

It's possible that the item that fell to the ground either did so because the ground's velocity moved up to meet it (TE's accelleration) or because the mass of the ground under the item pulled it down (RE's gravity)..

This is exactly my point!  GRAVITY AND ACCELERATION are locally indistinguishable.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

When I jump up, I land back on the ground.

Actually, you jump and the Earth crashes into your feet.