Clarifications on 'Gravity'

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.

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

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.

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

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.

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.

So,
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.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 15, 2009, 09:32:08 AM

So,
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.

Again, RET makes the same predictions, so your point is moot.

Thank you at least for not calling the point "mute".

RET does not make the same predictions.  It has no assumptions of an upwardly accelerating earth, nor of the star cloud 3000km up pulling up on objects.  Doing the force balance in RET yields (mg) in the direction of gravity and F_reaction upward for a net force balance of 0, thus no dv or dx.

Work the force balance on the two objects at two locations with two differing upward accelerations in FET and check the results and then try your argument again.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 15, 2009, 10:06:38 AM

Thank you at least for not calling the point "mute".

RET does not make the same predictions.  It has no assumptions of an upwardly accelerating earth, nor of the star cloud 3000km up pulling up on objects.  Doing the force balance in RET yields (mg) in the direction of gravity and F_reaction upward for a net force balance of 0, thus no dv or dx.

Work the force balance on the two objects at two locations with two differing upward accelerations in FET and check the results and then try your argument again.

But in RET when the Moon is directly overhead the reaction force you measure on the ground decreases... so RET does have precedent for this kind of effect.

Again the force balance between mg_tot downward and f_reaction upward works out to zero.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 15, 2009, 11:05:43 AM

Again the force balance between mg_tot downward and f_reaction upward works out to zero.

Why wouldn't this apply in FET? If the two aren't in equilibrium, there will be a microscopic shift in position of the object until the normal force keeps it stationary relative to the Earth - assuming it is in contact with the Earth, of course. If it isn't, then there is no reaction force in RET either.

Please show me were it says it in the faq please, im not reading through everything.

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.

if a second object were placed on the earth at a point with a different acceleration

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on October 08, 2009, 06:09:05 AM

Acceleration is a change in velocity. Movement is not.

Acceleration is a change in velocity but it isn't a movement?  

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 15, 2009, 04:25:16 PM

if a second object were placed on the earth at a point with a different acceleration

See:

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 09:40:36 AM

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

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.

The earth accelerates up to it.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 16, 2009, 06:04:52 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 15, 2009, 04:25:16 PM

if a second object were placed on the earth at a point with a different acceleration

See:

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 09:40:36 AM

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

See:

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 09:15:58 AM

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.

and it has been stated here that mass density can impact the value of g.

Show that your idea is valid with a force balance on the objects.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 16, 2009, 07:41:08 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on October 16, 2009, 06:04:52 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 15, 2009, 04:25:16 PM

if a second object were placed on the earth at a point with a different acceleration

See:

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 09:40:36 AM

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

See:

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 09:15:58 AM

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.

and it has been stated here that mass density can impact the value of g.

Show that your idea is valid with a force balance on the objects.

I'm confused. There's nothing in that statement to suggest that what you are saying is in any way true. What idea am I supposed to be showing to be valid, anyway? The one that works in RET just as well as in FET, involving a normal reaction force which keeps objects stationary with respect to the Earth? Or the one where the gravitation of the stars affects the measured value of g, as evidenced by measured variation in g?

First off make up your mind as to whether 2 objects at two locations on the earth can be subject to different accelerations.

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

First off make up your mind as to whether 2 objects at two locations on the earth can be subject to different accelerations.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 16, 2009, 09:41:39 PM

First off make up your mind as to whether 2 objects at two locations on the earth can be subject to different accelerations.

I already have. See:

Quote from: Parsifal on October 14, 2009, 09:40:36 AM

No, the acceleration of the Earth is constant.

Quote from: SupahLovah on October 05, 2009, 10:00:56 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 15, 2009, 10:57:15 AM

Quote from: HTD on September 15, 2009, 10:55:08 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 15, 2009, 10:28:20 AM

The earth is an infinite plane and the atmoplane lies on top of it.

May I see your proof?

Measure gravitational pull from the top of a mountain and at sea level, take into account mass by location, and note the lack of difference.

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-10/goce-harnesses-ion-propulsion-capture-first-accurate-gravity-map-earth

Weird that it's scientifically accepted that gravity varies all over planet, huh?

I never said it didn't.  Gravitational changes are due to differences locally in density and mass.  Take any gravitational map taken from a set altitude and take relevent maps for mass distribution and density.

Lo and behold, they match up.  This is no coincidence.

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.

Additionally, the gravitation of the stars (and everything else, for that matter) do influence the measured value of g in RET (albeit virtually imperceptibly).

If it's imperceptible how do you know it happens?

I mentioned that I was referring to RET.  Relativity in RET says it happens, so my point is valid.

I'm still confused as to how you distinguish between a measured value that has been changed imperceptibly, and one that hasn't been changed at all.