Gravitational pull of stars

You just showed me a quote saying that the earth produces gravitation.

No, the quote says it produces an effect similar to gravity. In FE theory all gravity is caused by the upward acceleration of the universe. Therefore the stars should have no gravity. If stars above the earth accelerate upwards at the same rate as the rest of the universe they should not affect the UA on earth as they remain above the earth and only accelerate in one direction, up. For the FE UA 'gravity' to work the highest parts of earth would have to accelerate slower then the rest of the earth, which is not possible without mountains punching holes in the world.

Gravity is not the same thing as gravitation.  The DEF produces an effect similar to gravity; it does, it produces gravitation, it's just not gravity that's causing it.  The upward acceleration (UA) is simply the explanation for what causes us to feel what we perceive to be the force of gravity (which doesn't exist) on earth.  Nowhere in your quote does it say that it causes all of the gravitation in the universe.

Then what causes bodies to posses gravity? Is it distributes at random by a zetetic phenomenon?

Much like REers we can only theorize about what actually causes gravitation.  The prevailing theory is dark energy.

The earth is propelled upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s², causing most of the gravitational effect we feel.  It is powered by dark energy .  Similarly everything else also possesses gravitation, powered by its own dark energy field.  The earth itself has a monster dark energy field, which is the reason why the sun and stars and everything in the known universe is propelled upwards along with it.  But the smaller dark energy fields of the celestial bodies do have an effect on objects on earth as well (though not nearly as pronounced).  Therefore your question is based on an invalid assumption.  Everything in the universe possesses gravitation.

General Relativity has an equation that is universal, as are all other physical phenomena in physics. The prevailing theory is the Higgs boson particle interacting with other matter causes gravitation as we know it. There is no evidence that there is a difference in the distribution of dark energy on and around earth and on and around stars. Dark energy does not have a property that allows it to defy the laws of thermodynamics; dark energy has nothing to do with it.
 

Much like REers we can only theorize about what actually causes gravitation.  The prevailing theory is dark energy.

So dark energy powers the UA, but is also responsible for other, non-universal forms of gravity. Both stars and the earth have dark energy so if they obeyed one of the basic tenants of science, that behavior of phenomena in one area of the universe will be the same in another area, they would both have this second (third, etc) form of gravity.

General Relativity has an equation that is universal, as are all other physical phenomena in physics. The prevailing theory is the Higgs boson particle interacting with other matter causes gravitation as we know it. There is no evidence that there is a difference in the distribution of dark energy on and around earth and on and around stars. Dark energy does not have a property that allows it to defy the laws of thermodynamics; dark energy has nothing to do with it.

What properties of dark matter specifically make it implausible as a cause of acceleration?
 

So dark energy powers the UA, but is also responsible for other, non-universal forms of gravity. Both stars and the earth have dark energy so if they obeyed one of the basic tenants of science, that behavior of phenomena in one area of the universe will be the same in another area, they would both have this second (third, etc) form of gravity.

Whoever said there were multiple forms of gravitation?  The UA pushes everything because compared to the dark energy fields of less massive objects like stars and the sun it is extremely powerful!

Then what causes bodies to posses gravity? Is it distributes at random by a zetetic phenomenon?

Objects don't "possess" gravitation. They bend space-time to produce the phenomenon.

Mass curves space-time. Thus, gravitation.

The prevailing theory is the Higgs boson particle interacting with other matter causes gravitation as we know it.

What about objects that have no matter?

Objects don't "possess" gravitation. They bend space-time to produce the phenomenon.

Mass curves space-time. Thus, gravitation.

Allow me to rephrase, Why do some objects produce gravity while others do not?

What properties of dark matter specifically make it implausible as a cause of acceleration?

Dark matter does not interact with the matter that is conventional to humans. Dark energy is thought by some scientists to be a cause of the expansion of the universe, because it repels against other non-dark matter. To accelerate the universe it would need something to push against, there is nothing in FE theory to push against. If there was something to push against, it would be constantly moving farther away from our point of reference, making the amount of force generated by the dark energy constantly diminish. The amount of energy it needs to constantly accelerate the universe is infinite and impossible.

Whoever said there were multiple forms of gravitation?  The UA pushes everything because compared to the dark energy fields of less massive objects like stars and the sun it is extremely powerful!

Nowhere in your quote does it say that it causes all of the gravitation in the universe.

The UA pushes everything because compared to the dark energy fields of less massive objects like stars and the sun it is extremely powerful!

What? There is no explanation for the UA, it doesnt make any sense. Why would it accelerate in only one direction? Why would accelerate at all? What is the greater object? Why would objects accelerating in parallel affect each others gravity if there is no known mechanism to facilitate gravity as dark energy is a repulsive force? 

...If the modern physics are flawed then why don't we discover the true ones and rewrite the laws of physics instead of just come up with our own random crap.

I'll start by saying that the sky is blue because of the sunlight reflecting off the oceans...

My bad.  I said dark matter, instead of dark energy.    

From Wiki:

In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.

It's hypothetical.  We don't really know anything about it except that it satisfies some equations.  But it seems to be causing the accelerating expansion of the universe.  I see no reason why it doesn't make sense that it could be accelerating the earth.

The amount of energy it needs to constantly accelerate the universe is infinite and impossible.

So why do you RE'ers get to have an infinite and impossible energy source but the FE does not?

Quote from: Althalus on November 21, 2007, 05:49:10 PM

The amount of energy it needs to constantly accelerate the universe is infinite and impossible.

So why do you RE'ers get to have an infinite and impossible energy source but the FE does not?

In FE the universe is constantly accelerating, always increasing in speed. In RE dark energy acts opposite how gravity does, like a spring, pushing matter away from other matter, increasing rate of expansion over along period of time once the force of gravity is weakened by distance. In FE there is nothing to push against to accelerate the universe, which constantly requires a huge amount of energy forever. Thus, dark energy does not, in any way, make possible UA or the FE theory.

So again, you RE'ers get to have Dark Energy, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, with no end in sight, therefore requiring  a huge amount of energy forever.  Thus, by your reasoning, Dark Energy does not, in any way, make possible the accelerating expansion on the universe.

It is unknown whether the expansion of the universe is increasing, stable, or decreasing. If it is increasing, it could be a gradual increase, not acceleration.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

Uh, no, we have some pretty good evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Allow me to rephrase, Why do some objects produce gravity while others do not?

As long as objects have energy, momentum, and mass, they can produce the same phenomenon: bending of space-time and gravitation.

Observed magnitude
versus redshift is plotted for
well-measures distant12,13 and
(in the inset) nearby7 type Ia supernovae.
For clarity, measurements
at the same redshift are
combined. At redshifts beyond
z = 0.1 (distances greater than
about 109 light-years), the cosmological
predictions (indicated
by the curves) begin to
diverge, depending on the assumed
cosmic densities of
mass and vacuum energy. The
red curves represent models
with zero vacuum energy and
mass densities ranging from the
critical density rc down to zero
(an empty cosmos). The best fit
(blue line) assumes a mass
density of about rc /3 plus a
vacuum energy density twice
that large—implying an accelerating
cosmic expansion.

You can see the graph at Physics Today, April 2006, pg 56.

Quote from: Althalus on November 21, 2007, 05:49:10 PM

Allow me to rephrase, Why do some objects produce gravity while others do not?

As long as objects have energy, momentum, and mass, they can produce the same phenomenon: bending of space-time and gravitation.

Not according to our dear Roundy.

Quote

Observed magnitude
versus redshift is plotted for
well-measures distant12,13 and
(in the inset) nearby7 type Ia supernovae.
For clarity, measurements
at the same redshift are
combined. At redshifts beyond
z = 0.1 (distances greater than
about 109 light-years), the cosmological
predictions (indicated
by the curves) begin to
diverge, depending on the assumed
cosmic densities of
mass and vacuum energy. The
red curves represent models
with zero vacuum energy and
mass densities ranging from the
critical density rc down to zero
(an empty cosmos). The best fit
(blue line) assumes a mass
density of about rc /3 plus a
vacuum energy density twice
that large—implying an accelerating
cosmic expansion.

You can see the graph at Physics Today, April 2006, pg 56.

Yes the universal rate of expansion is currently increasing, but this may not always be the case; to extend the metaphor of dark energy acting like 'springs' pushing out, the springs of dark energy may eventually reach their limit, and no longer accelerate the rate of expansion. That means the energy needed will not be infinite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Universes.GIF
Gravity in FE theory requires constant acceleration in order to maintain gravitation. So the FE universe needs infinite energy to work properly. If the universe was constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s² it would have exceeded the speed of light by now.

Yes the universal rate of expansion is currently increasing, but this may not always be the case; to extend the metaphore of dark energy acting like 'springs' pushing out, the springs of dark energy may eventually reach their limit, and no longer accelerate the rate of expansion. That means the energy needed will not be infinite.

I didn't go to your source but I saw a lot of "mays" in that statement.

Gravity in FE theory requires constant acceleration in order to maintain gravitation. So the FE universe needs infinite energy to work properly. If the universe was constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s² it would have exceeded the speed of light by now.

Wrong.  It is only accelerating at that rate from our frame of reference.  To an outside observer it could never reach the speed of light.

I didn't go to your source but I saw a lot of "mays" in that statement.

If you read the article you posted you would know that an expanding universe does not require infinite energy.

Wrong.  It is only accelerating at that rate from our frame of reference.  To an outside observer it could never reach the speed of light.

Shouldn't it be not moving from our frame of reference? Is it accelerating and not moving at the same time? facepalm.png

I don't see why UA would require infinite energy.

We do experience the acceleration.  Anytime we jump the world rushes up to meet us at 9.8m/s².  That's an experiment proving that the earth is accelerating that anyone can perform right there.

It requires infinite energy because to accelerate an object needs force, a form of energy. It is necessary to have a force to change an object's path. Because the earth is constantly accelerating in FE theory, it constantly needs energy. You have claimed that dark energy and dark matter provide the necessary force, which is blatantly false because neither can supply infinite energy without an infinite amount of the stuff. Now you are claiming that 'it just happens' without any explanation at all. Newtonian gravity describes gravitation in a much more plausible manner, as it does not require secret sources of infinite energy or any sort of dark matter or energy.

It requires infinite energy because to accelerate an object needs force, a form of energy.

Uh, force is an influence, not a form of energy.

It is necessary to have a force to change an object's path. Because the earth is constantly accelerating in FE theory, it constantly needs energy.

Right. The expansion (or in other words, dark energy) of the universe causes the FE to accelerate.

You have claimed that dark energy and dark matter provide the necessary force, which is blatantly false because neither can supply infinite energy without an infinite amount of the stuff.

What stuff?

Newtonian gravity describes gravitation in a much more plausible manner, as it does not require secret sources of infinite energy or any sort of dark matter or energy.

Relativity describes gravitation more plausible than Newtonian gravity does. Gravitation requires space-time.

Quote from: Althalus on November 22, 2007, 12:47:10 AM

It is necessary to have a force to change an object's path. Because the earth is constantly accelerating in FE theory, it constantly needs energy.

Right. The expansion (or in other words, dark energy) of the universe causes the FE to accelerate.

Why does it accelerate in only one direction? If it is expanding, why in only on direction?

Quote from: Althalus on November 22, 2007, 12:47:10 AM

You have claimed that dark energy and dark matter provide the necessary force, which is blatantly false because neither can supply infinite energy without an infinite amount of the stuff.

What stuff?

Dark energy, dark matter.

Quote from: Althalus on November 22, 2007, 12:47:10 AM

Newtonian gravity describes gravitation in a much more plausible manner, as it does not require secret sources of infinite energy or any sort of dark matter or energy.

Relativity describes gravitation more plausible than Newtonian gravity does. Gravitation requires space-time.

Yes, i'm just rushing through things here.

Why does it accelerate in only one direction? If it is expanding, why in only on direction?

My theory could be that the FE universe is expanding in one direction. Thus, the vectors of all celestial bodies, along with the flat Earth, remain the same.

Well, I'm to tired to respond. Good night.

It requires infinite energy because to accelerate an object needs force, a form of energy. It is necessary to have a force to change an object's path. Because the earth is constantly accelerating in FE theory, it constantly needs energy. You have claimed that dark energy and dark matter provide the necessary force, which is blatantly false because neither can supply infinite energy without an infinite amount of the stuff. Now you are claiming that 'it just happens' without any explanation at all. Newtonian gravity describes gravitation in a much more plausible manner, as it does not require secret sources of infinite energy or any sort of dark matter or energy.

How does newtonian gravity describe gravitation that does not require secret sources of infinite energy?

For all we know there may be other flat planes with universes of their own floating out there as well.  We're only going up according to our frame of reference; from the point of view of the center of the universe (as in, the spot where the proposed singularity that exploded (so to speak) into the Big Bang) I'm sure it would be more appropriate to say we are moving outwards.  The bottom of the earth would most likely be facing this point, I'd imagine.

As to your point about the constant acceleration, well, I don't think it's necessarily perfectly constant.  Think about it from a round earth perspective.  Will "gravity" always be pulling us down at a rate of 9.8m/s² or will that effect eventually lessen?  Think carefully about the answer because the former would require infinite energy!  I see it as the same for the UA.  Just because it appears to be constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s² doesn't mean either that it has always been so or that it will always be so.

Or maybe it is infinite.  As far as I've seen, the question of whether there is infinite energy in the universe is debatable all by itself.