I tried the step off your chair experiment

So I tried Toms experiment and I stepped off my chair while watching the ground. When I did this it did appear that the ground may be moving towards me. However it was not conclusive. I still felt like I was moving towards the ground a little. If I had done only this one step I would lean towards the Earth accelerating towards me, but I decided to try a couple of different approaches. I then decided to look up when I stepped off the chair. When I did this it was clear that is was I that was moving towards the ground and not the ground towards me.

I still didn?t feel comfortable with my results because the first experiment had me leaning towards the ground moving. So I threw a ball in the air as I watched it come towards me it was very clear that the ball was moving and towards me, and that I was not moving towards it.


After doing this I then decided that the Earth must not be accelerating up as this is not what I observed.

When I did this it was clear that is was I that was moving towards the ground and not the ground towards me.
After doing this I then decided that the Earth must not be accelerating up as this is not what I observed.

Well I appreciate your ambition to experiment but "just deciding" the Earth is not accelerating really isn't any evidence. From the sound of your experiment, whether or not you moved towards the ground or the ground moved towards you is not able to be determined.

Glad to hear you say that, since Tom holds it up as prime evidence for a flat earth.

Quote from: IAMSAM on December 11, 2009, 05:53:55 PM

When I did this it was clear that is was I that was moving towards the ground and not the ground towards me.
After doing this I then decided that the Earth must not be accelerating up as this is not what I observed.

Well I appreciate your ambition to experiment but "just deciding" the Earth is not accelerating really isn't any evidence. From the sound of your experiment, whether or not you moved towards the ground or the ground moved towards you is not able to be determined.

I agree, but isnt this how Tom comes to his conclusions? He says when he steps off his chair the ground appears to move up to him so it must be. When he looks out the window it appears the Earth is Flat so it must be.

From the sound of your experiment, whether or not you moved towards the ground or the ground moved towards you is not able to be determined.

Kinda sucks as a proof then huh?

Now try each stage of the experiment again, but this time carry an accelerometer with you. Only the results you record while in an inertial frame of reference - that is to say, while the accelerometer reads zero - are valid representations of motion.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 11, 2009, 06:01:06 PM

From the sound of your experiment, whether or not you moved towards the ground or the ground moved towards you is not able to be determined.

Kinda sucks as a proof then huh?

Im not using it as proof, but Tom does. I guess that I worded it wrong. I should have said from what I observed It appears more likely that I was moving towards the ground and that the ground is not moving towards me.

Now try each stage of the experiment again, but this time carry an accelerometer with you. Only the results you record while in an inertial frame of reference - that is to say, while the accelerometer reads zero - are valid representations of motion.

I would be glad to, but it appears that they cost more than $2,000. If I can get 100 people to throw in $20 each I will pay the difference and try it out. I will then post my results. Anybody want to throw in? (OH yeah if you find one cheaper we can buy that one)

Now try each stage of the experiment again, but this time carry an accelerometer with you. Only the results you record while in an inertial frame of reference - that is to say, while the accelerometer reads zero - are valid representations of motion.

So?

An accelerometer reading zero does not prove that the earth is accelerating upwards.

Quote from: Parsifal on December 11, 2009, 06:24:21 PM

Now try each stage of the experiment again, but this time carry an accelerometer with you. Only the results you record while in an inertial frame of reference - that is to say, while the accelerometer reads zero - are valid representations of motion.

I would be glad to, but it appears that they cost more than $2,000. If I can get 100 people to throw in $20 each I will pay the difference and try it out. I will then post my results. Anybody want to throw in? (OH yeah if you find one cheaper we can buy that one)

Actually, anyone with an iPhone, iTouch, or iPod Nano 4th-5th generation has an accelerometer that can be directly accessed by placing the iPod into a diagnostic mode.

everyone needs to shut up about the chair!  there is no discernable difference between gravity and acceleration.  Gravity and inertia both increase relative to mass so this route will lead us all NOWHERE.

Learn 2 relativity.

Learn 2 relativity.

Relativity (the EP in particular) says that stepping off your chair gives inconclusive results.  So I wish Tom would stop bringing it up as evidence of anything.

Quote from: Johannes on December 12, 2009, 10:33:51 AM

Learn 2 relativity.

Relativity (the EP in particular) says that stepping off your chair gives inconclusive results.  So I wish Tom would stop bringing it up as evidence of anything.

Most of the time RE'ers claim that "attraction" to the earth is proof of a round earth.

Quote from: markjo on December 12, 2009, 10:58:30 AM

Quote from: Johannes on December 12, 2009, 10:33:51 AM

Learn 2 relativity.

Relativity (the EP in particular) says that stepping off your chair gives inconclusive results.  So I wish Tom would stop bringing it up as evidence of anything.

Most of the time FE'ers claim that "attraction" to the earth is proof of a round earth.

The EP aspect of Relativity has some very specific parameters for not being able to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.  Stepping off a chair is within those parameters.  If you wish do discuss other scenarios, please be more specific.

It's quite simple.

When you step off a chair and observe the surface of the earth you can see that the earth is moving upwards towards you. The fact that the earth is moving towards you is directly observable.

You cannot see "graviton" puller particles rising out of the earth and pulling you down.

You cannot see bends in the "aether" causing the fabric of space to warp.

You cannot see a Newtonian force.

Ergo, the most direct explanation is that the earth is accelerating upwards.

It's the same way when walking out onto a busy highway. The fact that a semi-truck is racing towards you at 75 miles an hour is directly observable. A hypothesis which says that invisible gravitons are pulling you towards the semi is completely ridiculous and can be rejected outright. It is directly observable that the semi is the one moving towards you.

It's quite simple. ...
...
It's the same way when walking out onto a busy highway. The fact that a semi-truck is racing towards you at 75 miles an hour is directly observable. A hypothesis which says that invisible gravitons are pulling you towards the semi is completely ridiculous and can be rejected outright. It is directly observable that the semi is the one moving towards you.

Yes exactly, much like if you observe a musician playing a flute... it is obviously the instrument that makes the music. A hypothesis that says invisible 'wind' particles are pushing or pulling through the leading edge is completely ridiculous and can be rejected outright. It is directly observable that the fingers pressing the keys on the flute are causing the music to be generated from the instrument. An outside or 'invisible' force is preposterous.

[/sarcasm]

Take care all,
-Optimus

When you step off a chair and observe the surface of the earth you can see that the earth is moving upwards towards you. The fact that the earth is moving towards you is directly observable.

Of course, but you haven't explained how you distinguish between the earth moving through space up to you, or you moving through space down to the earth. Both would produce the same observed effect.

It's the same way when walking out onto a busy highway. The fact that a semi-truck is racing towards you at 75 miles an hour is directly observable. A hypothesis which says that invisible gravitons are pulling you towards the semi is completely ridiculous and can be rejected outright. It is directly observable that the semi is the one moving towards you.

You're comparing apples to flashlights here Mr. Bishop. A truck on the freeway is moving horizontally AND under it's own power.

When I step off the chair, I am moving towards the Earth, not the other way around. My inner ear (which gives me balance, helps me to detect motion and direction of motion) tells me this. A simple accelerometer also tells me this. It has proven to me that I am falling towards the Earth, the Earth is not moving towards me even though it can be perceived to look that way.

Mr. Bishop, do you believe in germs, viruses, and radiation?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2009, 03:15:38 PM

When you step off a chair and observe the surface of the earth you can see that the earth is moving upwards towards you. The fact that the earth is moving towards you is directly observable.

Of course, but you haven't explained how you distinguish between the earth moving through space up to you, or you moving through space down to the earth. Both would produce the same observed effect.

What moves you towards the surface of the earth in your scenario?

On one hand we can see the mechanism which keeps us pinned to the surface of the earth. The earth's upwards movement is directly observed and experienced by all.

On the other hand we have some wackos telling us that "something invisible pulled you down, but we don't know what".

It's clear what the correct answer is.

When I step off the chair, I am moving towards the Earth, not the other way around. My inner ear (which gives me balance, helps me to detect motion and direction of motion) tells me this.

No, it doesn't.

A simple accelerometer also tells me this.

The accelerometer actually reads zero when you take it into free fall with you.

I.e. It is inert.

I.e. It isn't going anywhere.

Mr. Bishop, do you believe in germs, viruses, and radiation?

If it can be detected or observed, sure.

Let me know when someone has detected "gravitons" and "puller particles".

When I step off the chair, I am moving towards the Earth, not the other way around. My inner ear (which gives me balance, helps me to detect motion and direction of motion) tells me this.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Read up and grasp an understanding of the human vestibular system.

A simple accelerometer also tells me this.

The accelerometer actually reads zero when you take it into free fall with you.

I.e. It is inert.

I.e. It isn't going anywhere.

I stand corrected, you are right regarding the workings of an accelerometer.

An accelerometer measures the proper acceleration it experiences relative to freefall. Put another way, at any point in spacetime the equivalence principle guarantees the existence of a locally inertial frame, and an accelerometer measures the acceleration relative to that frame.[1]

An accelerometer will read zero during free fall. This includes use in a spaceship orbiting earth, but not a (non-free) fall with air resistance where drag forces reduce the acceleration until terminal velocity is reached, at which point the device would once again indicate 1 g acceleration upwards.

I only asked about germs and radiation because you have a habit of discounting things that you cannot see or observe for yourself. Have you ever personally seen any of these things?

Just because Gravitons havent yet been discovered does not mean they do not exist Tom, nor does it mean that gravity necessarily requires them.

So... if you step off of a chair, and the Earth rushes up to meet you and we take that as the way things are, then all things must be travelling with the Earth at some sort of Universal Constant right?

Ok - if it were just a constant speed, then I could just jump really hard and keep on going because I am at the same speed as Earth.

So we conclude there is a Universal Acceleration that equals a sensation of around the 6.8 we are used to walking around in.

Ok - so has the Earth surpassed the speed of light and we are actually just some sort of light based entities living in a tachion dream-world now? I mean if we've been accelerating at that speed for untold eons... wouldn't we have either surpassed (by some unknown law of physics) the speed of light, or expanded to infinity by now?

Thanks,
- Optimus

Yes, it does. Read up and grasp an understanding of the human vestibular system.

When you go into free fall and become inert, you are weightless. Your feeling of "falling" is a feeling of what it's like to be in a weightless environment. Your ears and guts are no longer pinned to the earth's surface and can therefore move around to give you the sensation of weightlessness.

The experience of being weightless ends when the earth meets your feet.

I only asked about germs and radiation because you have a habit of discounting things that you cannot see or observe for yourself. Have you ever personally seen any of these things?

If I were curious about the existence of germs or bacteria I could easily get a microscope and see them for myself.

If I am curious about the existence of "gravitons", you might as well be asking me to consider the that a fleet of sub-atomic fairies are pulling me towards the earth, because there is no evidence what-so-ever.

Just because Gravitons havent yet been discovered does not mean they do not exist Tom, nor does it mean that gravity necessarily requires them.

"Just because we can't see them it doesn't mean that they don't exist"

Sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

So... if you step off of a chair, and the Earth rushes up to meet you and we take that as the way things are, then all things must be travelling with the Earth at some sort of Universal Constant right?

Ok - if it were just a constant speed, then I could just jump really hard and keep on going because I am at the same speed as Earth.

So we conclude there is a Universal Acceleration that equals a sensation of around the 6.8 we are used to walking around in.

Ok - so has the Earth surpassed the speed of light and we are actually just some sort of light based entities living in a tachion dream-world now? I mean if we've been accelerating at that speed for untold eons... wouldn't we have either surpassed (by some unknown law of physics) the speed of light, or expanded to infinity by now?

Thanks,
- Optimus

From the FAQ:

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light. For an in depth explanation:  Click here.

Quote

Just because Gravitons havent yet been discovered does not mean they do not exist Tom, nor does it mean that gravity necessarily requires them.

"Just because we can't see them it doesn't mean that they don't exist"

Sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

Yeah, we all know you dont believe in anything you cant see Tom, which makes many of us wonder why you bother breathing?

what i want to know is why smoke rises if the earth is constantly moving upwards. according to your rules, it should be pushed down to the earth like everything else.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2009, 06:37:43 PM

Quote

Just because Gravitons havent yet been discovered does not mean they do not exist Tom, nor does it mean that gravity necessarily requires them.

"Just because we can't see them it doesn't mean that they don't exist"

Sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

Yeah, we all know you dont believe in anything you cant see Tom, which makes many of us wonder why you bother breathing?

Air isn't invisible. It's possible to see it. When you look off in the distance bodies are faded blue due to the non-transparent atmosphere.



You can also feel air.

Comparing air to "gravitons" is a completely ridiculous comparison. Gravitons have absolutely no evidence what-so-ever. They exist in the same realm as the supernatural.

actually the opaqueness is the accumulation of looking through miles (or the distance the picture is) of suspended moisture droplets in the air.
EDIT: You can feel gravity too. Go into a free-fall chamber, and you'll feel weightless. have them turn it off. and you'll fall