A better reason for why objects "fall" to the grou

Ok, for FEers and other devil's advocates. (for the record, i am an REer)

I showed why the earth accellerating at a constant 9.8m/s/s could not be the reason for the earth's percieved gravity. Without a consistant theory to why objects "fall" to the ground, all of the other FEer ideas are null. Can they/you come up with a new one?

For the record, you did nothing of the kind.

Linkie to your retarded thread? I need a laugh as to how you can discern gravity from constant acceleration.

Linkie to your retarded thread? I need a laugh as to how you can discern gravity from constant acceleration.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but neither of us have started any retarted threads.

For your entertainment, the way to discern gravity from constant acceleration is to measure tidal effects.

Where does string theory fit in??

For your entertainment, the way to discern gravity from constant acceleration is to measure tidal effects.

What? Please explain further. :shock:

Also, I was referring to the person who started this thread when they said "I showed why the earth accellerating at a constant 9.8m/s/s could not be the reason for the earth's percieved gravity."  I took this to mean they incorrectly think that they can tell the difference between acceleration due to gravity and due to whatever it is that makes flat earth rocket forward.

What? Please explain further. :shock:

One of the fundamental principles of the most successful theory of gravity to date -- General Relativity -- is the principle of equivalence, which states that no local experiment can ever distinguish between acceleration and gravitation.  The key here is locality -- the strength of a gravitational field varies with distance to the source of the field.  An accelerating frame of reference, however, experiences (or rather, can be arranged in some circumstances to experience) the same acceleration on all parts of itself.

If you're allowed to do experiments which involve measuring things at two distant points, you can distinguish between gravitation and acceleration -- if you're not allowed, you can't make the distinction.  The point is, there definitely are experiments that can be performed that will determine whether, according to general relativity, the Earth is accelerating upwards or emitting a gravitational field.

Effects related to the fact that gravitational fields vary with distance are called "tidal effects", because that's how (on the RE) tides work.

Never though about that.  Isn't that easy to use to disprove FE gravity theory?

Guys hope this helps...

String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of point like particles in theories of physics, in particular the problem of defining a sensible quantum theory of gravity. Studies of string theories have revealed that they predict not just strings, but also higher-dimensional objects.

Cool stuff, huh?

Never though about that.  Isn't that easy to use to disprove FE gravity theory?

I claim that the tidal effect between, say, the ground and the top of Mt. Everest, or the ground and an airplane, are not large enough to be measured without extremely sensitive equipment that it would be very difficult for us to acquire and to bring to those locations.

troubador has found information indicating that the Earth is moving with respect to a field of thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.  While his claims that this CMBR act as an absolute frame of reference are, I think, erroneous (as that would overthrough general relativity completely), measuring the redshift and blueshift of this radiation will indeed indicate the Earth's motion with respect to the CMBR, and can thus be used to determine whether we are accelerating with respect to the CMBR.

There are a few problems with this suggestion, the most obvious of which is that again it is very difficult for us (the members of this forum) to measure this redshift, and so we are forced to rely on the reports of other scientists.

The next is that the CMBR cannot be an absolute frame of reference, meaning it is just as appropriate to say that it is moving with respect to us as to say that we are moving with respect to it -- that's the essence of relativity.

The last problem is that the CMBR is radiation, which seems to invalidate it as a candidate for any frame of reference, whether absolute or relative.  The problem with light is that it always moves the same speed, which means you can't measure your speed by looking at how fast light goes.  Just to compare, if you're moving through the air, you can measure your airspeed by seeing how fast sound moves, since the speed of sound is constant through air of a given temperature and pressure.  Thus if you emit some sound and never hear it, you must be moving away from the point of emission at at least the speed of sound.  You can't do anything like that with light, since the light will always reach you at the speed of light.

One way to get information about your motion by looking at light is by measuring the redshift of the spectrum of that light -- I will not go into details here.  The conclusion that you draw, however, is not that you are moving a certain speed with respect to the light, but that you are moving a certain speed with respect to the source of the light.  So really, to say we are moving with respect to the CMBR is really to say that we are moving with respect to the source of the CMBR, and it is not clear to me what that source is.

how can the "accelerating earth" bullshit account for the fact that acceleration due to gravity decreases measurably with altitude?

how can the "accelerating earth" bullshit account for the fact that acceleration due to gravity decreases measurably with altitude?

I'm ignoring this, since it was addressed not only in a dozen other places, but in the above post itself.