Clarifications on 'Gravity'

Quote from: Pseudointellect on October 11, 2009, 01:30:17 AM

9.8 m/s^2? As you know, we have observed that acceleration is not an exact constant everywhere on earth; it changes based on latitude and altitude. At more extreme latitudes, it is higher; at higher altitudes, it is lower. What explains the differences in this acceleration? (i.e. differences in normal force)

The differences in the normal force are caused by varying separation between the atoms in your feet and those in the ground, in accordance with Coulomb's law.

If I placed a ball at location 1, by your theory, with an acceleration of a1 and a second ball at location 2 with acceleration a2 where a2 > a1 then ball 2, which isn't connected to the earth, should accelerate a away from ball 1 with a predictable increase in velocity given by: v = v0 +at. 

The laws of physics states that every object with mass has gravitational pull proportional to its distance squared

G = m1 x m2 / d2

Are FE believers saying that the Earth and everything on it has no mass?

And I will repeat that is it a LAW of physics, not a theory.

If I placed a ball at location 1, by your theory, with an acceleration of a1 and a second ball at location 2 with acceleration a2 where a2 > a1 then ball 2, which isn't connected to the earth, should accelerate a away from ball 1 with a predictable increase in velocity given by: v = v0 +at. 

No.

The laws of physics states that every object with mass has gravitational pull proportional to its distance squared

G = m1 x m2 / d2

Are FE believers saying that the Earth and everything on it has no mass?

And I will repeat that is it a LAW of physics, not a theory.

That equation is all of improperly written, outdated and a law in name only.

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 08:24:37 AM

The laws of physics states that every object with mass has gravitational pull proportional to its distance squared

G = m1 x m2 / d2

Are FE believers saying that the Earth and everything on it has no mass?

And I will repeat that is it a LAW of physics, not a theory.

That equation is all of improperly written, outdated and a law in name only.

OK I will simplify it for you as a statement. Every object with mass had a gravitional pull. No exceptions.

Argue that.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 14, 2009, 08:19:17 AM

If I placed a ball at location 1, by your theory, with an acceleration of a1 and a second ball at location 2 with acceleration a2 where a2 > a1 then ball 2, which isn't connected to the earth, should accelerate a away from ball 1 with a predictable increase in velocity given by: v = v0 +at. 

No.

Why?

OK I will simplify it for you as a statement. Every object with mass had a gravitional pull. No exceptions.

Argue that.

What's there to argue? I agree with you.

Why?

Because in FET, the variation in g is caused by the gravitational influence of the celestial plane. As you get nearer the stars, so their gravitational attraction on you increases, and you get pulled up - resulting in a lower apparent downward force.

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 08:36:03 AM

OK I will simplify it for you as a statement. Every object with mass had a gravitional pull. No exceptions.

Argue that.

What's there to argue? I agree with you.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 14, 2009, 08:48:36 AM

Why?

Because in FET, the variation in g is caused by the gravitational influence of the celestial plane. As you get nearer the stars, so their gravitational attraction on you increases, and you get pulled up - resulting in a lower apparent downward force.

I'm not debating the cause of anything at this point.  I'm debating what an observed effect would be.

If I placed a ball at location 1, by your theory, with an acceleration of a1 and a second ball at location 2 with acceleration a2 where a2 > a1 then ball 2, which isn't connected to the earth, should accelerate a away from ball 1 with a predictable increase in velocity given by: v = v0 +at. 

I'm not debating the cause of anything at this point.  I'm debating what an observed effect would be.

If I placed a ball at location 1, by your theory, with an acceleration of a1 and a second ball at location 2 with acceleration a2 where a2 > a1 then ball 2, which isn't connected to the earth, should accelerate a away from ball 1 with a predictable increase in velocity given by: v = v0 +at. 

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 08:36:03 AM

OK I will simplify it for you as a statement. Every object with mass had a gravitional pull. No exceptions.

Argue that.

What's there to argue? I agree with you.

Well the Earth has mass, therefore the Earth has gravity.
That breaks the whole acceleration theory.

FE debunked
The End

I don't understand your balls.

mtarlo11 - have you ever accelerated? I bet you have.

Well the Earth has mass, therefore the Earth has gravity.
That breaks the whole acceleration theory.

FE debunked
The End

And as we all know, things with gravity can't accelerate.

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 09:42:31 AM

Well the Earth has mass, therefore the Earth has gravity.
That breaks the whole acceleration theory.

FE debunked
The End

And as we all know, things with gravity can't accelerate.

Im saying Gravity is the reason we are stuck to the Earth, not acceleration.
Are you saying the Earth is a combination of both?

Im saying Gravity is the reason we are stuck to the Earth, not acceleration.
Are you saying the Earth is a combination of both?

That is one possibility.

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 09:56:29 AM

Im saying Gravity is the reason we are stuck to the Earth, not acceleration.
Are you saying the Earth is a combination of both?

That is one possibility.

Well we have came to the conclusion that is can only exist with a combination of Gravity and Accel..or just Gravity
We are getting somewhere

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 14, 2009, 09:35:56 AM

I'm not debating the cause of anything at this point.  I'm debating what an observed effect would be.

If I placed a ball at location 1, by your theory, with an acceleration of a1 and a second ball at location 2 with acceleration a2 where a2 > a1 then ball 2, which isn't connected to the earth, should accelerate a away from ball 1 with a predictable increase in velocity given by: v = v0 +at. 

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

Again irrelevant, I'm referring to the ball, and the force/acceleration acting on it. 

You stated

Quote from: Pseudointellect on October 11, 2009, 01:30:17 AM
9.8 m/s^2? As you know, we have observed that acceleration is not an exact constant everywhere on earth; it changes based on latitude and altitude. At more extreme latitudes, it is higher; at higher altitudes, it is lower. What explains the differences in this acceleration? (i.e. differences in normal force)


The differences in the normal force are caused by varying separation between the atoms in your feet and those in the ground, in accordance with Coulomb's law.

and

Because in FET, the variation in g is caused by the gravitational influence of the celestial plane. As you get nearer the stars, so their gravitational attraction on you increases, and you get pulled up - resulting in a lower apparent downward force.
 

Both allowing for a gradient in g acting on two seperate objects relative to the surface of the earth.  Which again you could calculate the increase in velocity and distance between two objects placed at two differing locations on this gradient.  These could be found by:
v= v(0) + at and
x= x(0) +v(0)t + 1/2 a t^2
Yet no such observations exist.

Both allowing for a gradient in g acting on two seperate objects relative to the surface of the earth.  Which again you could calculate the increase in velocity and distance between two objects placed at two differing locations on this gradient.  These could be found by:
v= v(0) + at and
x= x(0) +v(0)t + 1/2 a t^2
Yet no such observations exist.

RET would also predict the same observations. Since, according to you, no such observations exist, you have just made a point which supports nothing and refutes the same.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 14, 2009, 10:44:22 AM

Both allowing for a gradient in g acting on two seperate objects relative to the surface of the earth.  Which again you could calculate the increase in velocity and distance between two objects placed at two differing locations on this gradient.  These could be found by:
v= v(0) + at and
x= x(0) +v(0)t + 1/2 a t^2
Yet no such observations exist.

RET would also predict the same observations. Since, according to you, no such observations exist, you have just made a point which supports nothing and refutes the same.

With the wxception that in RET there is a reactive force (equal and opposite) balancing this downward acceleration (perceived as weight)

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 14, 2009, 12:38:16 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 11:00:54 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 14, 2009, 10:44:22 AM

Both allowing for a gradient in g acting on two seperate objects relative to the surface of the earth.  Which again you could calculate the increase in velocity and distance between two objects placed at two differing locations on this gradient.  These could be found by:
v= v(0) + at and
x= x(0) +v(0)t + 1/2 a t^2
Yet no such observations exist.

RET would also predict the same observations. Since, according to you, no such observations exist, you have just made a point which supports nothing and refutes the same.

With the wxception that in RET there is a reactive force (equal and opposite) balancing this downward acceleration (perceived as weight)

Yes?

Meaning in one the unequal accelerations of the two objects would cause movement of one relative to the other.
In RET the ground reacts with the acceleration of the mass resulting in a force of the body on the earth not in motion.  If you were to remove the reactive force then the mass would go into motion based on the equations of motion would then apply.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 08:28:15 AM

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 08:24:37 AM

The laws of physics states that every object with mass has gravitational pull proportional to its distance squared

G = m1 x m2 / d2

Are FE believers saying that the Earth and everything on it has no mass?

And I will repeat that is it a LAW of physics, not a theory.

That equation is all of improperly written, outdated and a law in name only.

OK I will simplify it for you as a statement. Every object with mass had a gravitional pull. No exceptions.

Argue that.

Somethings without mass have a pull.  So where does that leave us.

Have you measured all mass, or are you just abusing inductive reasoning? 

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 08:36:03 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 08:28:15 AM

Quote from: mtarlo11 on October 14, 2009, 08:24:37 AM

The laws of physics states that every object with mass has gravitational pull proportional to its distance squared

G = m1 x m2 / d2

Are FE believers saying that the Earth and everything on it has no mass?

And I will repeat that is it a LAW of physics, not a theory.

That equation is all of improperly written, outdated and a law in name only.

OK I will simplify it for you as a statement. Every object with mass had a gravitional pull. No exceptions.

Argue that.

Somethings without mass have a pull.  So where does that leave us.

Have you measured all mass, or are you just abusing inductive reasoning? 

I thought it was claimed earlier that the infinite plane of earth had infinite mass?

Yes it does.

Have you measured all mass, or are you just abusing inductive reasoning? 

It's a denial of inductive reasoning to insist that all mass must be measured.

Somethings without mass have a pull.  So where does that leave us.

Things without mass have a gravitational influence or not is completely irrelevant.  The fact that things with mass do have a gravitational influence and its ramifications on FET is the topic of discussion.

Quote from: John Davis on October 14, 2009, 01:30:42 PM

Have you measured all mass, or are you just abusing inductive reasoning? 

It's a denial of inductive reasoning to insist that all mass must be measured.

Great, you know the definition of the word.  You are quickly becoming less and less worth my time.

Quote from: John Davis on October 14, 2009, 01:30:42 PM

Somethings without mass have a pull.  So where does that leave us.

Things without mass have a gravitational influence or not is completely irrelevant.  The fact that things with mass do have a gravitational influence and its ramifications on FET is the topic of discussion.

As I said, its an abuse of inductive reasoning to say that everything in the universe that has mass has a gravitational pull.  Much like if I were to say, well every cat I've seen in my town is black, so every cat in the world must be black.

Quote from: Crustinator on October 14, 2009, 06:16:55 PM

Quote from: John Davis on October 14, 2009, 01:30:42 PM

Have you measured all mass, or are you just abusing inductive reasoning? 

It's a denial of inductive reasoning to insist that all mass must be measured.

Great, you know the definition of the word.  You are quickly becoming less and less worth my time.

Quote from: markjo on October 14, 2009, 07:20:20 PM

Quote from: John Davis on October 14, 2009, 01:30:42 PM

Somethings without mass have a pull.  So where does that leave us.

Things without mass have a gravitational influence or not is completely irrelevant.  The fact that things with mass do have a gravitational influence and its ramifications on FET is the topic of discussion.

As I said, its an abuse of inductive reasoning to say that everything in the universe that has mass has a gravitational pull.  Much like if I were to say, well every cat I've seen in my town is black, so every cat in the world must be black.

Possibly the worst analogy I've ever seen.
It is a law of physics that every cat is black? No
It is a law of physics that everything with mass has gravitational pull? Yes

Are you trying to say that the laws are wrong?

But *why* is it a law of physics that all mass has pull?

Have we observed all mass?

No.

Have we observed even a statistically non-trivial amount of it?

No.

And yet, we can keep in our happy ways and proclaim from the roof tops that all cats are black.

I happen to agree that all mass has pull, but you have to realize the counter argument is valid.

Meaning in one the unequal accelerations of the two objects would cause movement of one relative to the other.
In RET the ground reacts with the acceleration of the mass resulting in a force of the body on the earth not in motion.  If you were to remove the reactive force then the mass would go into motion based on the equations of motion would then apply.

Are you suggesting that in FET, the ball would simply pass directly through the solid matter of the Earth below it?

As I said, its an abuse of inductive reasoning to say that everything in the universe that has mass has a gravitational pull.  Much like if I were to say, well every cat I've seen in my town is black, so every cat in the world must be black.

Come now John, who is abusing inductive reasoning now?  According to Einstein, it is the very nature of mass to warp space-time (cause gravitation), therefore every thing with mass must warp space-time to some degree.  To say that we haven't observed all the mass in the universe is an argument from ignorance an a logical fallacy.

One could easily turn that arrow around and say that is exactly the claim being made.

Which is to say:
That the statement "some mass can not give off a pull" is not true just because we haven't seen it - which is the basis of GR, et al.  GR, etc could just as easily be applied as "energy that gives off gravitational pull has these characteristics" while energy that doesn't must follow a broader set of rules.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 14, 2009, 01:13:56 PM

Meaning in one the unequal accelerations of the two objects would cause movement of one relative to the other.
In RET the ground reacts with the acceleration of the mass resulting in a force of the body on the earth not in motion.  If you were to remove the reactive force then the mass would go into motion based on the equations of motion would then apply.

Are you suggesting that in FET, the ball would simply pass directly through the solid matter of the Earth below it?

No, I'm telling you that if the only acceleration is upward on the ball, then unequal accelerations will cause a difference in velocity, and thus distance between the objects, since there is no downward force yet mentioned in FET to counteract it.