Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

I didn't say that relativity is not common sense I just said you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration in real life by looking at other factors.

I really don't know what you're getting at most of the time Darkfrog.

You are not reading what I am posting.

The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.

Quote

The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.

Well people used telescopes to work out we were not on an accelerating disk before relativity. That's my point.

Quote from: Kasroa on March 26, 2007, 05:55:41 PM

Well people used telescopes to work out we were not on an accelerating disk before relativity. That's my point.

Again, extremely non-specific answer, something I expect more from some of these FEers not REers.
How can I accept or refute what you are trying to say if you don't say it?

It has been asked before, HOW can you tell the difference between being in an accelerated FOR and a gravitational FOR by using a telescope if everything you can see is accelerating along with you?

As I said, if you continue with your half-answers, I'm done, it means you are hopeless.

Okay so back to the box. Suddenly a shutter opens and there is a window behind it. You look out the window and see that you are in the middle of a field on Earth. Now you simply use common sense to work out that you're not accelerating through space at all but you are on a planet so what is causing you to be able to walk around is the acceleration due to the gravitation

You don't even need to start talking about tidal forces..

What if everything you could see was not accelerating with you? You're making up examples where it is not possible to differentiate and I am giving examples where it is possible. Of course it is impossible if you only ever give examples where it is not possible. However when we look through our telescopes we see a solar system. We see we are orbiting a star. We see we are spherical. We see so many things that indicate to us that we are not on a flat disk accelerating through space at 1 g for 5 billion years.

Quote from: Kasroa on March 26, 2007, 06:20:16 PM

Okay so back to the box. Suddenly a shutter opens and there is a window behind it. You look out the window and see that you are in the middle of a field on Earth. Now you simply use common sense to work out that you're not accelerating through space at all but you are on a planet so what is causing you to be able to walk around is the acceleration due to the gravitation

The most awesome way in which you're wrong is that even in the RE universe, stuff falls to the ground because the Earth is accelerating towards it.  It's easy to see when you realize that spacetime is curved.  If objects on the Earth's surface were not accelerating away from the centre of the Earth, then they would be following timelike geodesics, by definition.  However, all the timelike geodesics in the viscinity of the Earth (in the RE universe) lead into the Earth, through its surface.  Because we're not sinking into the ground, we're not following timelike geodesics, so we're not inertial objects, so we must be accelerating.  The only force we feel is that of the ground on our feet, so it must be the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards (i.e. away from its centre).

Basically, you almost said it yourself:

Quote

You don't even need to start talking about tidal forces..

In fact, you do.  Talking about tidal forces is the only way to tell the difference between acceleration and "true" gravitation.  This is true not just in a play physics world -- it's true in our world (flat or round) too.

Quote from: Kasroa on March 26, 2007, 06:25:08 PM

What if everything you could see was not accelerating with you? You're making up examples where it is not possible to differentiate and I am giving examples where it is possible. Of course it is impossible if you only ever give examples where it is not possible. However when we look through our telescopes we see a solar system. We see we are orbiting a star. We see we are spherical. We see so many things that indicate to us that we are not on a flat disk accelerating through space at 1 g for 5 billion years.

I'm not making up examples, you're changing the rules. If you are going to attempt to disprove someone's theory like a FE, you have to accept EVERYTHING they are saying supports their theory. If you look through a telescope you cannot see 'we are spherical.' You are just saying things without supporting your comments as I keep explaining to you. You have to be specific, like HOW we can tell these things. There is no way to refute you except by just saying, "no we can't" and that just is argumentative. Quit being so vague and give specific examples.

The other thing you are doing is taking part of the FE theory and not all of it to try to disprove it. You are essentially cutting a window in the accelerating box which is cheating. The idea that all of the objects we see in the sky are accelerating with us is not mine but the foundation of the FEer's theory. It is on that basis that I am telling you it is impossible to disprove what they are saying. Why is this such a difficult concept for you? Being a RE believer, we do make assumptions, including distances to the sun, planets, moon, etc. You have to realize that much of what we "know" about our solar system and everything is based on the primary assumption that we are on a sphere. However, it is very similar to the Socratic method, the FEers are challenging your believe by giving counter examples that would be completely in line with known physics by changing some of those assumptions.
So, I will ask one more time. What specifically can you see with a telescope that 'proves' RE and disproves FE while still taking into account everything that they say is true about the world we can see?

Can neither of you read? I am not disagreeing with equivalence principle. I know how fucking gravitation works for fuck's sake. I said we can distinguish which type of acceleration we are experiencing. Which we can given the right conditions...e.g. conditions such as not living in a windowless room.

My God how much more simple can I make it?

I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Quote from: Kasroa on March 27, 2007, 05:44:51 AM

I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

You just aren't paying attention. I know the Equivalence Principle, probably better than you. That isn't in debate here. My whole point if you go back a read again from the beginning is in order to refute the idea of a FE, you have to refute it as a whole. My point is that their claims are impossible to refute if you take their whole argument. You can't argue only parts of their theory without taking into account all of their other explanation. IOW, all evidence we have for a RE is countered by some principle of theirs. Their idea of an accelerated earth ONLY works if the sun, moon, and stars are accelerating with us, making us in a single FOR, or the enclosed box. You say that I set impossible examples, but they aren't mine, they are the FE'ers ideas. You can't prove we aren't accelerating by using physics alone was my only point all along. Sure, if you want to point out we have been to space and all, I agree, but if you take their argument's against that, you go back to square one.
So to restate, using the FE theory, due to the EP, it is impossible to distinguish between gravitation and acceleration. And I challenge you to try to be specific again (you still haven't been able to do so) you need to give me an exact description of an experiment or some observation that shows that we are not accelerating but experiencing gravity. No links to the EP, that isn't the contention here. You are just not answering the questions that are put forth. You are talking in circles.

Quote from: Darkfrog on March 27, 2007, 07:12:53 PM

Quote from: Kasroa on March 27, 2007, 05:44:51 AM

I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

You just aren't paying attention. I know the Equivalence Principle, probably better than you. That isn't in debate here. My whole point if you go back a read again from the beginning is in order to refute the idea of a FE, you have to refute it as a whole. My point is that their claims are impossible to refute if you take their whole argument. You can't argue only parts of their theory without taking into account all of their other explanation. IOW, all evidence we have for a RE is countered by some principle of theirs. Their idea of an accelerated earth ONLY works if the sun, moon, and stars are accelerating with us, making us in a single FOR, or the enclosed box. You say that I set impossible examples, but they aren't mine, they are the FE'ers ideas. You can't prove we aren't accelerating by using physics alone was my only point all along. Sure, if you want to point out we have been to space and all, I agree, but if you take their argument's against that, you go back to square one.
So to restate, using the FE theory, due to the EP, it is impossible to distinguish between gravitation and acceleration. And I challenge you to try to be specific again (you still haven't been able to do so) you need to give me an exact description of an experiment or some observation that shows that we are not accelerating but experiencing gravity. No links to the EP, that isn't the contention here. You are just not answering the questions that are put forth. You are talking in circles.

How about the fact that we aren't molten slag?  I doubt anyone would argue that the cosmic background radition is "accelerating with us" given the constancy of the speed of light from all reference frames.  It wouldn't take long at constant 1g acceleration before even the background radiation blue shifts to such extremes that it would melt the planet.  See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html and http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html for references which took 5 seconds to find.

We are not in a rocket ship, we are on a planet with an atmosphere and a magnetic field that shields us from all sorts of cosmic radiation. Even with those, some high intensity gamma rays still make it through but we still aren't cooked by them.

Of course, if you consider the CBR isn't accelerating with us, then you have an external reference frame which of course the FE'ers would deny. If the sun, moon and even the stars are in the same reference plane as the earth, it only stands to reason everything we can see and measure, including the CBR is moving with us, so therefore your assumption is wrong.

How exactly can the CMB "accelerate with us"?  That doesn't even make sense.

RE science confirms that the "CBR" is in fact "moving with us", whatever that is supposed to mean: it has been observed to be isotropic.  This means that its spectrum is the same in all directions; there is no observed blue- or redshift in any part of the sky (to my knowledge; this has been disputed but I have not seen any references).

Are you suggesting that etc.

We should see blueshift.  A hell of a lot of it.  We wouldn't expect to see it until we approach more significant fractions of the speed of light.

But at constant 1g we'd be at extremely high velocity very, very quickly.

The faster we go, the more "oomph" is required to maintain that level of acceleration.
How does that work exactly?