Flat Earth moves upwards?

Quote from: Jack on May 06, 2010, 04:41:24 PM

According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.

Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.

Gravity can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!

According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 04:51:33 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 06, 2010, 04:41:24 PM

According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.

Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.

Gravity can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!

The Moon is aloft over the Earth because of its photoelectric interaction with the Earth's core. It accelerates at the same rate as the Earth.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 04:51:33 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 06, 2010, 04:41:24 PM

According to GR, gravity and UA are governed by the same principle: there are no experiments that can differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.

Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.

Gravity can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!

The Moon is aloft over the Earth because of its photoelectric interaction with the Earth's core. It accelerates at the same rate as the Earth.

Of course you can. The moon has markedly less mass than the earth. Therefore, it should have less positive acceleration. Thus it would be overtaken and crash into the earth.

The UA can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!

Except the Cavendish Experiment.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 04:51:33 PM

The UA can't be both attractive and repulsive at the same time, can it?!

You may want to look up the equivalence principle.

I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.

Despite the fact that I quoted his post, I was not addressing that particular question. I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.

Quote from: Jack on May 06, 2010, 05:54:05 PM

Despite the fact that I quoted his post, I was not addressing that particular question. I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.

You did actually, though not blatantly. You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't. The only line of similarity is that they both have a vector value of 9.81m/sec on the surface of the earth, which isn't even constant throughout. Something, ie the UA, is pushing against the earth from below, the earth is not pushing itself upwards! Because if it was, then the earth would fly apart like a round from a shotgun, regardless of flatness or roundness! Simultaneously under your statement, the earth should somehow hold itself together because it's mass keeps it from becoming increasingly thin (the disk would thin but increase in diameter). See how your assertion makes zero sense now?

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 06:11:47 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 06, 2010, 05:54:05 PM

Despite the fact that I quoted his post, I was not addressing that particular question. I never said anything about gravity being attractive and repulsive at the same time.

You did actually, though not blatantly. You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't. The only line of similarity is that they both have a vector value of 9.81m/sec on the surface of the earth, which isn't even constant throughout. Something, ie the UA, is pushing against the earth from below, the earth is not pushing itself upwards! Because if it was, then the earth would fly apart like a round from a shotgun, regardless of flatness or roundness! Simultaneously under your statement, the earth should somehow hold itself together because it's mass keeps it from becoming increasingly thin (the disk would thin but increase in diameter). See how your assertion makes zero sense now?

I believe it is explained in two theories.

A)The heavenly bodies exert a slight pull
B)The earth exerts a slight pull(and since mass is inconsistent or w/e,gravity varies.)

You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't.

The only line of similarity is that they both have a vector value of 9.81m/sec on the surface of the earth, which isn't even constant throughout. Something, ie the UA, is pushing against the earth from below, the earth is not pushing itself upwards! Because if it was, then the earth would fly apart like a round from a shotgun, regardless of flatness or roundness! Simultaneously under your statement, the earth should somehow hold itself together because it's mass is attractive, it keeps it from becoming increasingly thin (the disk would thin but increase in diameter). See how your assertion makes zero sense now? The UA is both accelerating the earth upwards, yet at the same time it pulls objects together (the Cavendish effect).

The two can't be the same thing, and they certainly can't be governed by the same thing.

The Moon is aloft over the Earth because of its photoelectric interaction with the Earth's core.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 06:11:47 PM

You said that the UA and Gravity are governed by the same principle when clearly they aren't.

They are. Perhaps you are trying to challenge General Relativity?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 06, 2010, 04:54:52 PM

Except the Cavendish Experiment.

What about it?

Perhaps you are trying to challenge General Relativity?

If you drop a ball inside of a ball the one in the center moves around. If the earth was accelerating toward them wouldn't the center ball remain stationary?

Galileo's experiment was to drop two separate balls of the same material but of different masses. It was to show that descent was independent of mass. Meaning that heavy objects to not fall faster than lighter ones. I don't see a conflict.

What I am talking about is having one ball inside of the other. While holding the larger one both appear to be stationary. If we release it the interior ball should not move because it has not moved but the earth has accelerated toward it. correct?

I don't recall ever encountering something called the Universal Accelerator.
... but I do remember a cosmological constant... which I dearly hope you aren't referring to as that would indicate a severe lack of understanding. 

It something the UA and Gravity don't have in common.  The UA can't make two objects of no magnetic or electrical charge attract one another.

It also proves that gravity exists and it functions by the equations given.
And if we say that all matter produces gravity then the Earth, which is made of matter, must therefore produce Gravity as well. 

In no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.

Quote from: Jack

In no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference.

Since when do things spontaneously accelerate sideways with no force applied to them?

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 06:53:19 PM

I don't recall ever encountering something called the Universal Accelerator.
... but I do remember a cosmological constant... which I dearly hope you aren't referring to as that would indicate a severe lack of understanding. 

Do you recall encountering something called the Principle of Equivalence from General Relativity?

Yes.  It only applies under specific conditions, such as when tidal forces can ignored.

Since when do things spontaneously accelerate sideways with no force applied to them?

Since the Cavendish experiment shows that gravity exists and can cause objects to accelerate towards each other on a horizontal plane (not just vertical) than mass MUST cause gravity.  And if mass causes gravity than the Earth MUST have gravity.

Please show how the Cavendish experiment, which was merely an attempt to measure the Earth's density, can distinguish between a downward pull of gravity and an upward acceleration of 9.8m/s² in our reference frame, thereby contradicting Einstein's equivalence principle.

And how does that distinguish between the observed effects of a downward gravitational pull and an upward acceleration at 9.8m/s² in our reference frame?

It distinguishes between the earths gravity and the gravity of the test weights by having the test weights placed on equal horizontal planes, removing any of the earths gravitational effect.