The appearance of Gravity

Given FET cites "look out of your window" as an argument in favour of FET against RET presumably this is based on an assumption below (I did try to establish this but the thread got derailed)

*If X appears to the ordinary observer to be Y then the burden of proof will fall on those seeking to show that (not Y) such that if both the theory that X is Y and the theory that X is (not Y) can account for all observable phenomenon it shall be assumed that X is Y.*

How does FET deal with the way that principle relates to gravity.

After all, when I drop a ball it appears to fall to the ground, it does *not* appear that the ground is accelerating up towards it, yes it would look exactly the same if the ground + myself were accelerating up towards it, but that does not change the fact that it *appears* to be falling. Therefore under your own principle Gravity is true not the UA until it can be prooven otherwise.

Since Gravity is inconsistent with FET they cannot both be true at the same time, therefore the principle above must be invalid, therefore "look out of your window" is not any kind of argument against RET.

Yeah, bring it on, flat guys. 

Take a step off the edge of your chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully.

It looks like i'm falling............also ouch.

You gonna address the point?

No of course he won't. He doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even understand your argument.

Take a step off the edge of your chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully.

When you walk across the room, are you moving across the floor or is the floor moving under your feet?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2009, 09:44:09 AM

Take a step off the edge of your chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully.

When you walk across the room, are you moving across the floor or is the floor moving under your feet?

When I walk across the floor I'm propelling myself across with my own two legs.

When I walk off the edge of a chair and observe the surface of the earth carefully I'm not propelling myself towards the earth.

Obviously the direct explanation from experience is that the earth is propelling itself towards me.

Stand in from of your chair (a large comfy chair), rock backwards and fall into the chair, then tell me that experience tells us the chair has sped up towards you and slapped you on the arse.

See, I told you he didn't understand.

*If X appears to the ordinary observer to be Y then the burden of proof will fall on those seeking to show that (not Y) such that if both the theory that X is Y and the theory that X is (not Y) can account for all observable phenomenon it shall be assumed that X is Y.*

The funny thing about this is that no X satisfies the above criterion. For example, the observable phenomenon X is Y is not accounted by in the theory X is not Y.

I have another question about FE acceleration. So far FET provides acceleration as the Earth accelerating upwards. At high altitudes, it's the stars pulling us upward. Why would there be two different reasons for acceleration? How are these two different systems accounted for?

Stand in from of your chair (a large comfy chair), rock backwards and fall into the chair, then tell me that experience tells us the chair has sped up towards you and slapped you on the arse.

What we experience is the chair hitting us. We don't put our bodies in motion when we fall. When we go into free fall we are inert and motionless. We are not propelling ourselves.

The earth propels itself into us.

I have another question about FE acceleration. So far FET provides acceleration as the Earth accelerating upwards. At high altitudes, it's the stars pulling us upward. Why would there be two different reasons for acceleration? How are these two different systems accounted for?

The stars are not the earth.

It is not given that one thing has the exact properties as another and no less.

Quote from: Atom Man on December 05, 2009, 03:38:27 PM

I have another question about FE acceleration. So far FET provides acceleration as the Earth accelerating upwards. At high altitudes, it's the stars pulling us upward. Why would there be two different reasons for acceleration? How are these two different systems accounted for?

The stars are not the earth.

It is not given that one thing has the exact properties as another and no less.

By this do you mean that the stars consist of a form of matter that has gravitational properties and the Earth does not?

By this do you mean that the stars consist of a form of matter that has gravitational properties and the Earth does not?

It is not known what the stars exist as. They may be made of plasma, energy, matter, or a combination thereof.

Quote from: Ondupe on December 05, 2009, 12:56:57 PM

Stand in from of your chair (a large comfy chair), rock backwards and fall into the chair, then tell me that experience tells us the chair has sped up towards you and slapped you on the arse.

What we experience is the chair hitting us. We don't put our bodies in motion when we fall. When we go into free fall we are inert and motionless. We are not propelling ourselves.

The earth propels itself into us.

This is odd, because when I jump or walk off an elevated platform I get the impression that I am falling towards the earth, not the other way round.

Also, why does the force that accellerates the earth upwards not affect me? Or is the matter of the earth of a special form that means only it is affected.

I'm not trying to attack you by the way, I'm just curious as to what your theory is in regards to this.

Quote from: ERTW on December 05, 2009, 03:58:16 PM

By this do you mean that the stars consist of a form of matter that has gravitational properties and the Earth does not?

It is not known what the stars exist as. They may be made of plasma, energy, matter, or a combination thereof.

My understanding is that plasma is a form of matter (the 4th). If stars are made of plasma "or" matter and have gravity then it would be surprising if matter on Earth does not have gravity.
I have never heard of any observation of a cohesive object (made of more than one thing, particle, whatever) made entirely of energy, and have not heard any theory that describes what such an object may behave like (outside of the paranormal). I can't imagine an object made entirely of light for example, since it would seem to dissipate in the absence of matter to perpetuate it or contain it through reflection or gravity. Virtual particles are observed to appear from nowhere, but the pair has a net energy of zero and seems unlikely to form stars.
Do you know of any theories that shed "light" on this issue?

This is odd, because when I jump or walk off an elevated platform I get the impression that I am falling towards the earth, not the other way round.

When you fall you're feeling what it's like to be in an inertial frame of reference rather than one where you are pinned to the earth's surface.

I'm not trying to attack you by the way, I'm just curious as to what your theory is in regards to this.

The nature of the stars are unknown.

Quote

This is odd, because when I jump or walk off an elevated platform I get the impression that I am falling towards the earth, not the other way round.

When you fall you're feeling what it's like to be in an inertial frame of reference rather than one where you are pinned to the earth's surface.

Quote

I'm not trying to attack you by the way, I'm just curious as to what your theory is in regards to this.

The nature of the stars are unknown.

There is a star in our near vicinity, visible with various scientific instruments. Based on these observations, physicists have concluded that the sun is primarily composed of Hydrogen undergoing fusion into Helium. Based on nuclear models of this fusion event, which we can and do reproduce on Earth, we can observe the sun and test our theories. I recently finished work on T2K, a project to study neutrinos, which is now producing data.
More specifically, we can observe neutrinos emanating from the sun and measure their flavor. I admit that this research is still progressing, but it shows that we can know something about the stars.
If you want me to start posting data solar neutrino data with time stamps from Super Kamokande or SNOLAB I could certainly try. You should not however expect to be able to analyze it yourself without the proper tools. I can post pictures of neutrino tracks through the detector, but of course I could have always made them in Paint.
Also, in the first 3 weeks of commissioning the Fine Grain Detector (part of the T2K near detector), I helped generate 2TBytes of compressed data, so I hope your hard drive is big.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T2K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNOLAB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande

PS: T2K was designed to shoot neutrinos down into the ground at about 1 degree, measure them after about 280m, and travel 300km to the other side of Japan where they interact in Super K. I personally visited the near detector (280m) site and inspected the detectors in a 40m deep pit, and walked the 280m to the accelerator, so can attest to the downward angle. I suppose if the Earth is flat than T2K should produce no statistically significant events and I have been wasting my time... or perhaps I too am in on the conspiracy.

Yes, you have been wasting your time. Neutrinos aren't going to be shot through the earth from Japan to Canada because the earth is flat.

Yes, you have been wasting your time. Neutrinos aren't shot through the earth like that.

What do you mean by "not shot through the Earth"? Do you mean by scientists or by stars?
If you mean by scientists, here is an event from the near detector.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45321145@N03/4162595960/
When I get a picture of a simultaneous event at ND280 and 300km away in Super-K I will post it. Of course, it hasn't happened yet, so that might be just what you expect if the earth is indeed flat...

If you mean by stars, than how do you explain the findings at the various solar neutrino observatories?
I find it hard to believe that physics grad students are in on the conspiracy, since they get paid really low but get to directly examine the data.
Just to clarify my previous post, the neutrino beam originates in Tokai, Japan and ends up at Super K in Japan. The detectors were built by a collaboration of 450 scientists and engineers from 12 countries.

Tom, why the hell would they knowingly sabotage an experiment just to try and uphold that the earth is round? The experiment must have cost thousands to set up.

What do you mean by "not shot through the Earth"? Do you mean by scientists or by stars?

Yes, scientists.

[/quote]

I didn't say that they would sabotage it. The experiment hasn't happened yet. The experiment will fail because the earth is flat.

Tom, to deny that falling feels like you are falling and not like you are at rest while the world rushes towards you, or to deny that when you drop a ball it looks like it's falling not that you and the rest of the world are whizzing past it is a denial purely because it doesn't fit with your theory.

Yes of course it would look exactly the same if the earth were accelerating towards you, but here's the point that RET has been throwing against the brick wall of your mind since the stone age, the world looks exactly as it would look if the world were round.

You are the one who seems to put stock in pure appearance as a route to truth, why do you resist the conclusion about gravity that you so warmly embrace about the shape of the earth.

Tom, why the hell would they knowingly sabotage an experiment just to try and uphold that the earth is round? The experiment must have cost thousands to set up.

More like ~$130 Million

Quote

What do you mean by "not shot through the Earth"? Do you mean by scientists or by stars?

Yes, scientists.

I didn't say that they would sabotage it. The experiment hasn't happened yet. The experiment will fail because the earth is flat.
[/quote]

T2K is just starting, but there are many more neutrino observatories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neutrino_experiments

Tom, to deny that falling feels like you are falling and not like you are at rest while the world rushes towards you, or to deny that when you drop a ball it looks like it's falling not that you and the rest of the world are whizzing past it is a denial purely because it doesn't fit with your theory.

Yes of course it would look exactly the same if the earth were accelerating towards you, but here's the point that RET has been throwing against the brick wall of your mind since the stone age, the world looks exactly as it would look if the world were round.

You are the one who seems to put stock in pure appearance as a route to truth, why do you resist the conclusion about gravity that you so warmly embrace about the shape of the earth.

Ha yes! The feeling in your stomache when you fall! This is impossible to explain with the earth accellerating towards you because according to that theory you are just moving at a constant speed while the earth speeds up.

There is absolutely no logical way to counter this without inventing a solution on the spot. This conclusively disproves UA, if not the whole of FEt if it relied on it enough.

LOL at tom not ready to accept that neutrinos are going to prove a RE.

I do enjoy the way Tom just squeaks madly and then shuts up when an expert in a field comes into the thread and totally blows him away.

I do enjoy the way Tom just squeaks madly and then shuts up when an expert in a field comes into the thread and totally blows him away.

In this instance Tom is right. T2K is not complete so for the moment it proves nothing. I probably should bring up T2K in a separate thread since the part about shooting neutrinos into the ground is not related to the OP. However, the solar neutrino observatories are what T2K is meant to back up, and I feel they are directly applicable to this thread. My intent is to show that efforts can and are being made to measure the composition of the Sun. I provide this to refute the statement "the stars composition is unknown".

Again to my main point: if the stars are made of matter and have gravity it would be strange if the matter on Earth did not.