Clarifications on 'Gravity'

My point was that while the measurements are beyond our abilities at the moment, the effect is predicted within RET so why should it be proscribed in FET?

Because in FET it's not imperceptible, it's huge. Allegedly. Somehow. Magically.

Yet strangely this change is actually imperceptible. Hmm.

Because in FET it's not imperceptible, it's huge. Allegedly. Somehow. Magically.

Yet strangely this change is actually imperceptible. Hmm.

Here's the simple version for you:

Do the stars and other celestial bodies exert a gravitational influence on the surface of the Earth?
RET:  Yes   
Some flavours of FET:  Yes

Is that influence measurable using modern equipment?
RET:  Stars: No  Moon/Sun: Yes
Some flavours of FET:   Stars: Yes  Moon/Sun: Yes

Is that influence measurable using modern equipment?
RET:  Stars: No  Moon/Sun: Yes
Some flavours of FET:   Stars: Yes  Moon/Sun: Yes

Seems like you've got a falsifiable test proposal there.

Quote from: Matrix on October 17, 2009, 12:30:36 PM

Is that influence measurable using modern equipment?
RET:  Stars: No  Moon/Sun: Yes
Some flavours of FET:   Stars: Yes  Moon/Sun: Yes

Seems like you've got a falsifiable test proposal there.

It does, doesn't it.  Off you go.

It does, doesn't it.  Off you go.

Your test, your Nobel prize. Good luck, or as they say in Switzerland, glockenspiel!

Your test, your Nobel prize. Good luck, or as they say in Switzerland, glockenspiel!

lol 

Alas, as I have said before, REers would never accept the results of a test performed by an FEer   Also, I don't have the funds to build the world's most sensitive gravimeter.

Alas, as I have said before, REers would never accept the results of a test performed by an FEer  

And FE'ers won't accept the results of a test performed by RE'ers.  Where does that leave us?

And FE'ers won't accept the results of a test performed by RE'ers.  Where does that leave us?

I have yet to see any experimental data posted by an FEer or an REer, so it leaves us in a pretty ambiguous state at the moment.

Alas, as I have said before, REers would never accept the results of a test performed by an FEer   Also, I don't have the funds to build the world's most sensitive gravimeter.

You don't need to be a FEer. Just be a scientist. Get one of the senior staff at your Uni to peer review it.

Good luck.

I have yet to see any experimental data posted by an FEer or an REer, so it leaves us in a pretty ambiguous state at the moment.

Use the search button. Toronto tower comes to mind.

Quote from: Matrix on October 17, 2009, 01:20:38 PM

Alas, as I have said before, REers would never accept the results of a test performed by an FEer   Also, I don't have the funds to build the world's most sensitive gravimeter.

You don't need to be a FEer. Just be a scientist. Get one of the senior staff at your Uni to peer review it.

Good luck.

Surely to be proper peer review I would have to be ignorant of who the reviewer was?

Quote from: Matrix on October 17, 2009, 02:23:20 PM

I have yet to see any experimental data posted by an FEer or an REer, so it leaves us in a pretty ambiguous state at the moment.

Use the search button. Toronto tower comes to mind.

All the RET evidence I have seen after a quick search has had its interpretation disputed by FEers.

Surely to be proper peer review I would have to be ignorant of who the reviewer was?

Probably so. But still it wouldn't hurt to have someone look it over before it gets sent off to Nature.

All the RET evidence I have seen after a quick search has had its interpretation disputed by FEers.

Hence Markjo's point. However, counter your your claim there has been experimental data posted.

Probably so. But still it wouldn't hurt to have someone look it over before it gets sent off to Nature.

I have said many times that FET is not in a state to be presented as a coherent theory, since it is still under development.  That is the purpose of debating it here.

Hence Markjo's point. However, counter your your claim there has been experimental data posted.

Sorry, I should have been more specific and explicitly stated decisive evidence.

I have said many times that FET is not in a state to be presented as a coherent theory, since it is still under development.  That is the purpose of debating it here.

But we've just exposed an extremely simple, falsifiable test! What are you waiting for?!

Sorry, I should have been more specific and explicitly stated decisive evidence.

No true Scotsman.

But we've just exposed an extremely simple, falsifiable test! What are you waiting for?!

Have we really?  I look forward to your detailed experimental proposal, complete with checks and controls to eliminate common FET counter-arguments.

Quote from: Matrix on October 18, 2009, 04:57:36 AM

Sorry, I should have been more specific and explicitly stated decisive evidence.

No true Scotsman.

No true REer can ever be right.

I look forward to your detailed experimental proposal, complete with checks and controls to eliminate common FET counter-arguments.

I never fall for the switcheroo.

Your test, your Nobel prize. Good luck, or as they say in Switzerland, glockenspiel!

Quote from: Matrix on October 18, 2009, 05:03:44 AM

I look forward to your detailed experimental proposal, complete with checks and controls to eliminate common FET counter-arguments.

I never fall for such obvious attempts at performing science.

Fix'd.

Quote from: dr0wningprincess on October 07, 2009, 11:19:39 PM

what is the speed at witch were moving upward?? and i dont get it, do we just keep moving up and up and up?? where are we goin?? and...............what is pushing us up?

We are moving at 9.8 m/s².

The earth is moving upwards because that is what is observed. For example, step up on your chair and walk off its edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. You will see that the earth accelerates upwards to you.

The mechanism which pushes the earth is presently unknown, but has been given the placeholder name of Dark Energy.

God, this one is funny.  Take a basic mechanics class Tom.  Since you, the chair, and the earth would be accelerating at the same rate when you are standing on the chair, if you stepped off you would hover, not fall to the ground. Unless you are proposing some mystic drag force, the fall would not be instantaneous as it so obviously is

I know what m/s2 means, but I am not sure Tom does. I wonder what force keeps the Atmosphere bonded to the earth, given that acceleration, and lack of gravity.

I know what m/s2 means, but I am not sure Tom does. I wonder what force keeps the Atmosphere bonded to the earth, given that acceleration, and lack of gravity.

Erm, you are aware that a piston pushes the air in front of it without the air being blasted off of the surface, yes?

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 18, 2009, 09:15:39 AM

I know what m/s2 means, but I am not sure Tom does. I wonder what force keeps the Atmosphere bonded to the earth, given that acceleration, and lack of gravity.

Erm, you are aware that a piston pushes the air in front of it without the air being blasted off of the surface, yes?

Only when that piston is enclosed within a cylinder.

Quote from: Matrix on October 18, 2009, 09:18:38 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 18, 2009, 09:15:39 AM

I know what m/s2 means, but I am not sure Tom does. I wonder what force keeps the Atmosphere bonded to the earth, given that acceleration, and lack of gravity.

Erm, you are aware that a piston pushes the air in front of it without the air being blasted off of the surface, yes?

Only when that piston is enclosed within a cylinder.

Such as the mythical DE/UA field you mean?

Quote from: markjo on October 18, 2009, 11:26:44 AM

Quote from: Matrix on October 18, 2009, 09:18:38 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 18, 2009, 09:15:39 AM

I know what m/s2 means, but I am not sure Tom does. I wonder what force keeps the Atmosphere bonded to the earth, given that acceleration, and lack of gravity.

Erm, you are aware that a piston pushes the air in front of it without the air being blasted off of the surface, yes?

Only when that piston is enclosed within a cylinder.

Such as the mythical DE/UA field you mean?

Or an infinite plain.

Or an infinite plain.

Or an infinite plane

Quote from: EireEngineer on October 18, 2009, 09:15:39 AM

I know what m/s2 means, but I am not sure Tom does. I wonder what force keeps the Atmosphere bonded to the earth, given that acceleration, and lack of gravity.

Erm, you are aware that a piston pushes the air in front of it without the air being blasted off of the surface, yes?

As the other poster indicated, only when it is enclosed in a cylinder. Try doing it in a vacuum and you would see that the air would rush away at a speed defined by the pressure of the piston.  The same would happen in an accelerating flat earth model without a gravitational force.  Also, what is supplying the energy for this mysterious and constant acceleration? Mythic "Dark Energy" I bet.

As the other poster indicated, only when it is enclosed in a cylinder. Try doing it in a vacuum and you would see that the air would rush away at a speed defined by the pressure of the piston.  The same would happen in an accelerating flat earth model without a gravitational force.  Also, what is supplying the energy for this mysterious and constant acceleration? Mythic "Dark Energy" I bet.

The Ice Wall will help keep the atmolayer contained, although it is correct that without some additional confinement all that will do is act as an effective evaporative cooling device.  This leaves us with either the infinite plane model, or with some additional form of confinement, which vanilla FET ascribes to an interaction with the DE/UA field itself.

And yes, dark energy is the placeholder name given to the driving force pushing the FE disc through space.

Quote from: John Davis on October 15, 2009, 09:17:50 AM

The earth accelerates up to it.

I'm confused here John. I thought you promoted the infinite-uniform-plane-with-Newtonian-gravity. Now I come back early with groceries to find you in bed with the accelerating model.

Please explain.

I was speaking of the model being discussed.

I was speaking of the model being discussed.

That wasn't clear in your post. Maybe you should have posted "In the accelerating earth model, to which I do not subscribe, the earth accelerates up to it."

By definition an infinite plane can not accelerate because there is nothing for it to accelerate in to.

An infinite PLANE is not infinite in 3 dimensions, only the two dimensions the plane lays on.

I do understand that, but in order for it to accelerate upwards to create "gravity" the universe would have to be a cylinder and since it is "infinite" there can be no side boundary as a frame of reference.