Lack of Gravity

  • 93 Replies
  • 11535 Views
Lack of Gravity
« on: February 23, 2010, 04:46:44 PM »
Alright, now, just to start us off, I'm sorry if my name offends. I, uh, I wanted a quick name for this, so I mean in no way to offend anybody...so I just don't want you thinking I'm another troll or something. But, uh, yeah...so, am I right in saying that FE theory states that the Earth propels toward you, instead of you falling, as there is no gravity? Well, does that mean that inertia is not a problem? If I dropped a bouncing object from, say, fifty feet, and it kept on bouncing, and there WAS inertia, would I not be thrown upward? Or is the fact that there is no gravity the reason for me not being thrown upward? Also, when I 'propel' myself upward via jumping, am I not moving MYSELF up, but the entire weight of the Earth down? And why does the Earth always go up at the right time? Lastly, I read somewhere on here someone's argument. He said, basically, that some evidence for the Earth moving, not you, would be freefalling. After all, when you're in freefall, you don't feel motion; the Earth appears to come towards you, so why isn't it? But from what I've observed, you DO probably feel motion as you fall through all the matter around you. You know, the atmosphere. Well, I can't back this up because I haven't skydived before, but ARE there any people here who have? And have any proof of it, say, like a video, so both FErs and RErs don't claim it is a lie? I don't want to compromise my credibility, but just read this assuming I'm not just a kid...yeah, just saying, I'm only 14, so I doubt I'm part of a 'conspiracy', 'kay? And I'm by no means wealthy; I'm poor, in fact. So I'm not being paid off...well, yeah, I just want to hear your responses to my arguments.

EDIT: My bad, thank you for moving it before too many people had begun arguing over where it should be moved to.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 04:50:34 PM by RandomDouchebag »

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2010, 04:48:56 PM »
Please read the site and board-specific rules, and post in the appropriate sections. Moved.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2010, 05:01:57 PM »
Under both theories, gravity [in RE] or gravitation [in FE] act exactly the same. Remember, gravity on RE is just a type of acceleration. You are accelerating towards the earth, but on a FE, with the earth accelerating towards you at a rate of 9.82m/s/s, both you amd the earth are still moving at the same speed in relation to each other when we observe a person 'falling' under both theories simultaneously at any given point in time. The earth in RE is holding the atmosphere there and you fall through it, you feel this as wind when you fall. On a FE, the earth is pushing up on the atmosphere, holding it there just as it does in RE. So when you 'fall' on a FE (the earth going up and you staying still) the earth is also pushing the atmosphere up at you, so you still feel it as wind.

Under neither theory do the observations differ, they just have different explanations behind them. In both FET and RET, gravity/gravitation does the exact same thing to you.

Please ask if you don't quite understand that :) .

Also note: I believe in a Round earth so I do not agree with the FET in anyway, I'm just helping you to understand them.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2010, 05:06:34 PM »
First off, is your name SUPPOSED to contain STFU in it, albeit a bit jumbled? Secondly, what about the whole 'object in motion stays in motion' thing? What would the argument be, then, for people not being launched into the air while other people fell?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2010, 05:08:21 PM »
First off, is your name SUPPOSED to contain STFU in it, albeit a bit jumbled? Secondly, what about the whole 'object in motion stays in motion' thing? What would the argument be, then, for people not being launched into the air while other people fell?


I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. Could you clarify?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2010, 05:12:41 PM »
Well, if you're standing on a board, and then a spring underneath it moves upward whilst you stand on it, you will be propelled upward. So, as the Earth is propelled toward an anvil I drop to the ground, and when it suddenly stops, what forces are at work keeping me, and every other free object, from not flying up like it's on a giant springboard? I'm assuming I'm misunderstood in how the whole FE gravitation (as Too Fast called it) works, then? Or is there another part of the theory addressing that?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2010, 05:37:28 PM »
Nah, it isn't supposed to say STFU. The first time I encountered that word, I recall saying "Why are you guys all misspelling my name?"

But anyway, in regards to the spring, I'll go through this in steps:

1. spring propels you up. Your speed at the point of leaving the spring is your final speed after being accelerated by the spring (for explanatory purposes, lets say 1mph) + the speed of the earth at that time (OR, in the case of RE, + ZERO, as the earth in RE isn't moving). This means under both theories, your speed at the point where you are forced up, is the same in relation to to the earth. The earth could be going a million miles an hour at that point in FE, but that means you are going a million miles an hour + the speed the spring makes you go (therefore 1,000,001 miles an hour is now your total speed, but in relation to earth it is only 1 mph). In RE, it is 1mph + 0mph = 1mph

2. After you have stopped touching the spring, the only forces now acting on you are air resistance and weight (remember, weight = m X g. g is the same for both theories and your own mass is still constant. Your downwards weight component is still the same) both acting down. Under FE, this air resistance will try to slow you down to ZERO and weight (the force the earth exerts on you) wants to get the earth closer to you. In RE, the only forces acting on you are still the same air resistance and weight acting in the same direction and the same magnitude as the ones in FET. Air resistance still wants to slow you down to ZERO, and weight still wants to get you closer to earth.

These forces all cause you to get the same distance away and move at the same speeds in relation to earth.

Anything you still don't understand?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2010, 05:41:22 PM »
ITT: nubs

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2010, 05:43:31 PM »
ITT: nubs
I'm fine with that, as long as you concede the fact that you are also in this thread.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2010, 05:44:40 PM »
ITT: nubs
I'm fine with that, as long as you concede the fact that you are also in this thread.
The ITT statements are a revision of the previous posts. If you didn't know that, my point surely applies.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2010, 05:45:28 PM »
Keep it on topic guys =)
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2010, 05:49:48 PM »
So, Parsec, what is it that you have come here to contribute with? Any other insightful bits of info so I can further understand this whole theory?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2010, 05:53:35 PM »
So, Parsec, what is it that you have come here to contribute with? Any other insightful bits of info so I can further understand this whole theory?
go through this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0

and this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2010, 06:06:42 PM »
Thanks; could you summarize that, please? After all, I'm only in eighth grade and so don't fully understand what that entire thing meant. So could you put it in easier-to-understand words?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2010, 06:21:48 PM »
Thanks; could you summarize that, please? After all, I'm only in eighth grade and so don't fully understand what that entire thing meant. So could you put it in easier-to-understand words?

Don't, you'll only bait him into posting more equations.  :(
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2010, 04:35:51 AM »
Thanks; could you summarize that, please? After all, I'm only in eighth grade and so don't fully understand what that entire thing meant. So could you put it in easier-to-understand words?


This is quite a complex subject, but here's probably the best 'summary' I know of on these forums (from the .net site):


Quote from: John Davis @ http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=359.0
Some people seemed interested in this when we were talking the other day and had written this up for another site and  figured I'd post htis here.

I'm going to give a brief overview of Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory in simple non-mathematical layman's terms.

Light

Light is a massless particle with a constant speed to all observers.  It has momentum.  It acts as both a wave and a particle.

To explain the problem prior to Einstein's work with light speed I will use a simple example.  Lets say Alice is standing 1000 feet away from a light source, and Bob is moving at 10ft/sec towards the light source.  Both of them can detect the speed of things, because they are just cool kids.  Common sense tells us that light will be observed by Alice to be light speed, and light will be observed by Bob to be light speed ( c ) - 10ft/sec.  However, they both observe light speed to be the same ( c ).  This seems like a paradox of sorts, but Einstein shows us how this works, among other things. 

The faster things travel, the more massive to an outside observer they get.  Furthermore the slower time seems to be passing to the object, to an outside side observer.  This is known as time dilation.  As things approach the speed of light, they get more massive (and thus harder to accelerate) and seem to be passing slower to outside observers.  Since to reach the speed of light their mass would need to reach infinite mass, they cannot break this barrier.

This time dilation is what makes the speed of light constant.  Even though Bob is moving faster towards light than Alice, time dilates and he measures the speed the same.

Gravity

Gravity also dilates time.  In fact, Einstein says that Gravity (or more accurately, gravitation) is equivalent to acceleration locally.  That is to say, if you are in a closed box and feel something pulling you down there is no way to tell if you are accelerating upwards (as in an elevator) or if you are being pulled down by gravitation.

Heres where it gets messy.   Remember time dilation?  Well, lets look back at Alice and Bob to expand on that a bit.

Lets say Alice and Bob are in the middle of space with no stars, gravitation, or any place marks to tell ones position.  Bob starts moving away from Alice at a constant speed.  However, from Bobs frame of reference, he is not moving at all, and it is Alice that is moving away!  So, to bring it together, since Alice is moving faster than Bob from his Frame Of Reference, Alice actually has her time moving slower and she is more massive!  It is also true that from Alice's Frame of Reference Bob is slower and more massive.  This may again seem like a paradox, but it is not.

So what does this all have to do with gravitation?  I promise, all of this will come together at the end.

Back to the Equivalence Principle ? you know, that says that gravitation is the same as acceleration.  Lets say you are in a closed box moving a constant speed.  This is known as an inertial frame of reference.  Now, lets say you are in a closed box accelerating upwards at the rate of 1g (about how fast you accelerate to the earth if you jump.)  This is known as a non-inertial frame of reference.  This is because you are being acted upon by a "force" that is unexplained by what you know.  In reality though, this is not a ?force? at all.  It is actually what is known as a pseudo-force.  Here is how wikipedia explains it:

Quote
?When a car accelerates hard, the common human response is to feel "pushed back into the seat." In an inertial frame of reference attached to the road, there is no physical force moving the rider backward. However, in the rider's non-inertial reference frame attached to the accelerating car, there is a backward fictitious force.?

Now here is the kicker.  Einstein says gravity is a pseudo-force caused by taking a non-inertial frame of reference to be an inertial one.  That is to say, we think that its a force acting on us, but really we are just accelerating through space.

Now why would we accelerate for no reason towards mass?  This is most likely the most often explained part of Relativity as it relates to gravitation.  Energy distorts space time, much like a bowling bowl would distort a taught sheet.  Remember, energy is mass. (E=mc^2). This is why accelerating also distorts space-time!  In mathematical terms, the space is no longer flat (or Euclidean) but is now non-euclidean.  This means two objects travelling parallel to each other may not end up being parallel further along the line and may even eventually hit each other.   Straight lines are no longer ?straight? but follow these distortions in space time.  When objects follow these ?non-straight? straight lines, they are said to follow their geodesics.

An important consequence of this is that you don't need mass to be affected by gravitation.  You simply need momentum ? to keep on travelling in a straight line.

So there we have it, Gravity is not a real force and thus does not exist.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2010, 11:35:16 AM »
there is a small difference, which is that gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two objects  (~1/r2).  In FET, this shouldnt change with altitude, but in RET it does (now if only people can gain enough altitude in an efficient way to measure this  :( You have to be in the army or work for nasa or something to actually get that high).  Basically, in RET, as you get higher, you get lighter.

because E&M also has this inverse square property, and they have a particle responsible for this force (the photon).  unfortunately, even with the high energy colliders, the basic unit responsible for the gravitational force in RET has not been observed (although the "graviton" has been theorized to exist, it has not been observed as of yet).  Every other force has a particle which has been responsible, and has been observed.

Also, using the RE theory of gravity, there seems to be more mass in the universe than is actually observable.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2010, 11:36:56 AM by brathearon »

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2010, 01:43:26 PM »
Well, if you're standing on a board, and then a spring underneath it moves upward whilst you stand on it, you will be propelled upward. So, as the Earth is propelled toward an anvil I drop to the ground, and when it suddenly stops, what forces are at work keeping me, and every other free object, from not flying up like it's on a giant springboard? I'm assuming I'm misunderstood in how the whole FE gravitation (as Too Fast called it) works, then? Or is there another part of the theory addressing that?

The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2010, 01:54:10 PM »
Can I just clarify the difference between gravity and gravitation.

Gravitation - This is the apparent attraction between two massive objects. If I were to place a pendulum near a mountain I would see it deviate slightly from vertical was it was attracted to the nearby mass of the mountain. In Einsteins general theory of relativity this is caused by massive objects altering the shape of space and therefore the shortest distance between two points. You can see an analogy to this by putting a heavy object on a rubber sheet and then rolling the ball across the sheet. The ball will be attracted to the object sure to the deformation of the sheet.

Gravity - This is what keeps you feet on the ground. To a good approximation gravity is gravitation on Earth. Although other more subtle effects some into play in RE theory such as the rotation of the Earth. After all effects have been taken into account you get a figure in the region of 9.81 m/s^-2.

The basic idea in FE theory is that the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2 giving the effect of an attraction due to mass. This is allowed under Einsteins equivalence principle. This basically says that being in a gravitational field is the same thing as accelerating. Imagine being in an accelerating car. You fell yourself being pushed into the seat, well you can thing of you feet being pushed into the ground in much the same way.  This is allowed in gravity but not in any other force because the gravitational couple constant is proportional to an object intertial mass (infact its not only proportional its equal to 1 as far as we know). Of course this then requires creative solutions to problems such as the non-uniformity of the Earths gravitaitonal field (different parts of the plant can't really accelerate at different rates) and why pendulums are attracted to mountains.

Is gravity a force? Well thats one for the philosophers. It can certainly be considered a pseudo force using Einsteins interpretation. It does seem unlikely that its a coincidence that intertial mass and the gravitational coupling constant are apparently identical. That said i've never been a fan of the word pseudo force, jump off a cliff then tell me gravity isn't a force.

Is gravity a complete theory? Possibly not. Gravity is famously irreconcileable with quantum mechanics the detail is pretty gory but the basic difference is not complicated. General relativity is smooth, space-time as a smooth object permeating the universe. Quantum Mechanics is discrete, individual particles have wavefunctions that are defined as existing over some region with a number of discrete quantum states. Fancy theories such as superstring theory attempt to discretise spacetime by making string like objects.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2010, 02:02:43 PM »
So gravity is just gravitation from the earth. So really doesn't need a seperate distinction, does it?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2010, 05:41:10 PM »
Nah, I understood most of what Wilmore had posted with the summary. Hmmmm, so gravity and gravitation are virtually indistinguishable to the common man, then? So Plebb, is there any simple experiment one could use to quickly distinguish the two (IE: not staying local)?

Slightly off-topic: Now I want to get a big box and drop it into a bottomless pit so I can experience a zero-g-esque experience.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2010, 01:49:05 AM »
Lanke you can ignore all that crap posted by Wilmore. Amid his effort to baffle you with a wall of copy pasta there is a grain of truth. Gravity is locally indistinguishable from acceleration.


I wasn't trying to "baffle" him - what you told him is already in the FAQ. Given that he already seemed to be familiar with our claims, I thought he might want an explanation as to why it's locally indistinguishable.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2010, 01:57:25 AM »
Well not as easily as you might think in some ways. The equivalence principle means many effects would look similar but not identical. Part of the problem is that is never been made clear to me exactly what the FE theory predicts, it largely seems to depend on which conditions are required to argue in a given thread. Personally I don't believe fundamental physical laws are a strong function of forum thread but theres certainly an experiment in there that could be performed.

For example does gravitation exist? If not the FE theory shows a severe tension with a number of terrestrial experiments (obviously you can't use satellite based experiments in your arguments). Mostly studying the acceleration due to gravity on or near mountain ranges. If the Earth were flat one would expect the apparent gravitational field lines to rise vertically as where in RE theory they should fall off with a 1/r2 dependance. Again if you believe them that latter is what is seen.


*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2010, 02:36:38 PM »
Nah, I understood most of what Wilmore had posted with the summary. Hmmmm, so gravity and gravitation are virtually indistinguishable to the common man, then? So Plebb, is there any simple experiment one could use to quickly distinguish the two (IE: not staying local)?

Slightly off-topic: Now I want to get a big box and drop it into a bottomless pit so I can experience a zero-g-esque experience.
So, you were able to understand that with your eighth grade education and not what was written in the FAQ?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2010, 05:11:31 PM »
It isn't just my eighth-grade education. I used to be a physics nerd. And besides, what Wilmore posted was very easily understandable. Now, I finally understand the whole 'acceleration' thing. Before, for some ludicrous reason, I thought the theory was that only WHEN an object raised would the Earth accelerate. Now, it's gotten into my thick skull that the Earth is, under FE Theory, ALWAYS accelerating upwards. Hmmm...now I have another question. Does that mean that the entirety of the universe is also accelerating? Or is collision with other celestial bodies imminent in the future?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2010, 05:13:22 PM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2010, 10:19:36 PM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2010, 01:10:57 AM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Someone needs to take Physics 102.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39107
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2010, 05:37:01 AM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?
Quite predictably, as it turns out.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2010, 08:14:48 AM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.