Stepping of chair experiment?

Was reading about the experiment and the one thing that kept bugging me was the following:

Tom bishop uses the number 9.81 m/s^2, I find this rather comical and ironic, I will tell you why. This number is the standard gravity, it is an average of the earths gravity. It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius. A FE'er used a number, which was determined by a formula, which was based on a RE? Or TB jump of his chair and "feel" that it was 9.81 m/s^2 ?

I doubt Tom has ever measured the acceleration. He would need a really big chair to do that.

I doubt Tom has ever measured the acceleration. He would need a really big chair to do that.

I thought as much, basically he says the earth is flat to then continue making up all kinds of physical laws to make everything "fit". In the same manner I could argue that my head is sqaure and 2 dimensional... There is no proof for the FET. In fact everything except the thought experiments based on made up laws (for they are no more than that) speaks for a RE and against a FE.

Was reading about the experiment and the one thing that kept bugging me was the following:

Tom bishop uses the number 9.81 m/s^2, I find this rather comical and ironic, I will tell you why. This number is the standard gravity, it is an average of the earths gravity.

The 9.81 m/s² is easy enough to measure so that shouldn't bother you at all.  Tom is essentially using the equivalence principle to demonstrate that acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to acceleration are indistinguishable.  From the frame of reference of the observer, it does indeed appear that the floor is accelerating up to meet you.  However, if you use the floor as the frame of reference, then it appears that you are accelerating down to meet it.  Mathematically, both scenarios are equally valid and therefore renders this experiment inconclusive as evidence either way.

The 9.81 m/s² is easy enough to measure so that shouldn't bother you at all.

Well actually getting an accuracy of nearly 1/1000 could be quite tricky. Especially in the time it takes to fall off a chair.

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

Was reading about the experiment and the one thing that kept bugging me was the following:

Tom bishop uses the number 9.81 m/s^2, I find this rather comical and ironic, I will tell you why. This number is the standard gravity, it is an average of the earths gravity.

The 9.81 m/s² is easy enough to measure so that shouldn't bother you at all.  Tom is essentially using the equivalence principle to demonstrate that acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to acceleration are indistinguishable.  From the frame of reference of the observer, it does indeed appear that the floor is accelerating up to meet you.  However, if you use the floor as the frame of reference, then it appears that you are accelerating down to meet it.  Mathematically, both scenarios are equally valid and therefore renders this experiment inconclusive as evidence either way.

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2010, 01:01:12 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

Was reading about the experiment and the one thing that kept bugging me was the following:

Tom bishop uses the number 9.81 m/s^2, I find this rather comical and ironic, I will tell you why. This number is the standard gravity, it is an average of the earths gravity.

The 9.81 m/s² is easy enough to measure so that shouldn't bother you at all.  Tom is essentially using the equivalence principle to demonstrate that acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to acceleration are indistinguishable.  From the frame of reference of the observer, it does indeed appear that the floor is accelerating up to meet you.  However, if you use the floor as the frame of reference, then it appears that you are accelerating down to meet it.  Mathematically, both scenarios are equally valid and therefore renders this experiment inconclusive as evidence either way.

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

You can easily use an accelerometer to find the acceleration of UA or pull of gravity when you fall off a chair. You don't need a formula to figure it out.

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 01:16:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2010, 01:01:12 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

Was reading about the experiment and the one thing that kept bugging me was the following:

Tom bishop uses the number 9.81 m/s^2, I find this rather comical and ironic, I will tell you why. This number is the standard gravity, it is an average of the earths gravity.

The 9.81 m/s² is easy enough to measure so that shouldn't bother you at all.  Tom is essentially using the equivalence principle to demonstrate that acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to acceleration are indistinguishable.  From the frame of reference of the observer, it does indeed appear that the floor is accelerating up to meet you.  However, if you use the floor as the frame of reference, then it appears that you are accelerating down to meet it.  Mathematically, both scenarios are equally valid and therefore renders this experiment inconclusive as evidence either way.

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

You can easily use an accelerometer to find the acceleration of UA or pull of gravity when you fall off a chair. You don't need a formula to figure it out.

But did he? According to RE'ers one can easily determine the roundness of earth by flying into space and making a few pictures, yet that isn't enough for FE'ers either.

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

I would also like to point out that the gravitational pull between 2 objects has been proven here on earth by the Cavendish experiment. It proves that any 2 bodies of mass have a gravitational pull towards each other. It also shows that this gravitational pull is proportional to the product of their masses. In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane. An infinite plane has infinite mass. Infinite mass is what we call a black hole. Infinite mass can not exsist as a plane in the same universe, in which the Cavendish experiment was conducted.

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

In what universe was Newton born before Erastosthenes?

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

In what universe was Newton born before Erastosthenes?

In no universe.

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:24:11 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

In what universe was Newton born before Erastosthenes?

In no universe.

Also, Newtons law of universal gravitation states the following F = G (m1/m2)/(r^2) in which r is not the radius but the distance between two point masses. How did you determine the radius of the earth with that formula? Also as you can see it uses G not g (Gravitational constant, not the earth's standard gravity), so either clarify what you meant or stop naysaying without arguments

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:35:03 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:24:11 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

In what universe was Newton born before Erastosthenes?

In no universe.

Also, Newtons law of universal gravitation states the following F = G (m1/m2)/(r^2) in which r is not the radius but the distance between two point masses. How did you determine the radius of the earth with that formula? Also as you can see it uses G not g (Gravitational constant, not the earth's standard gravity), so either clarify what you meant or stop naysaying without arguments

G (m1/m2)/(r^2) is wrong.

I am not determining any 'radius' of anything with any formula.

^ Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:40:58 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:35:03 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:24:11 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

In what universe was Newton born before Erastosthenes?

In no universe.

Also, Newtons law of universal gravitation states the following F = G (m1/m2)/(r^2) in which r is not the radius but the distance between two point masses. How did you determine the radius of the earth with that formula? Also as you can see it uses G not g (Gravitational constant, not the earth's standard gravity), so either clarify what you meant or stop naysaying without arguments

G (m1/m2)/(r^2) is wrong.

I am not determining any 'radius' of anything with any formula.

You are being rather frustrating, for you do not elaborate on anything T_T.

I quoute: spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from

How is that not determining any 'radius'?

Also G*(m1/m2)/(r^2) is not "wrong", it is the formula that goes along with Newtons law of universal gravitation, the law you brought up to start with. So start clarifying and stop contradicting yourself.

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:43:36 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:40:58 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:35:03 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:24:11 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

In what universe was Newton born before Erastosthenes?

In no universe.

Also, Newtons law of universal gravitation states the following F = G (m1/m2)/(r^2) in which r is not the radius but the distance between two point masses. How did you determine the radius of the earth with that formula? Also as you can see it uses G not g (Gravitational constant, not the earth's standard gravity), so either clarify what you meant or stop naysaying without arguments

G (m1/m2)/(r^2) is wrong.

I am not determining any 'radius' of anything with any formula.

You are being rather frustrating, for you do not elaborate on anything T_T.

I quoute: spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from

How is that not determining any 'radius'?

Also G*(m1/m2)/(r^2) is not "wrong", it is the formula that goes along with Newtons law of universal gravitation, the law you brought up to start with. So start clarifying and stop contradicting yourself.

It is simply the wrong equation...

The 4 most important progression of approximations for gravity are:

• (1) Uniform downward force field
• (2) Keplers law (predicts circular)
• (3) Newtons laws (predicts elliptical orbits)
• (4) Einsteins correction to newtons laws (which predicts and elliptical spirograph like orbit)

Now it happens that (1) is used in pretty much all physics on the earth but according to round earth theory (3) is more accurate (the difference is completely insignificant and just makes calculations harder)

Also you should study a bit more of the classical celestial mechanics before working on this stuff because I think you are stuggling with it a lot..

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

To be fair, Tom never claimed that he was measuring or calculating the 9.8m/s² value when he steps off the chair.  He was only demonstrating his assertion that the earth accelerates up to meet the observer.

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 01:16:06 PM

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

To be fair, Tom never claimed that he was measuring or calculating the 9.8m/s² value when he steps off the chair.  He was only demonstrating his assertion that the earth accelerates up to meet the observer.

So is it apart  of the conspiracy that the maths behind g line up with the purported mass/size of the earth?

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2010, 04:23:37 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 01:16:06 PM

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

To be fair, Tom never claimed that he was measuring or calculating the 9.8m/s² value when he steps off the chair.  He was only demonstrating his assertion that the earth accelerates up to meet the observer.

So is it apart  of the conspiracy that the maths behind g line up with the purported mass/size of the earth?

Gravity doesn't not affect FE. Only UA. The "maths" behind the theory of gravity are irrelevant.

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:57:29 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:43:36 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:40:58 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:35:03 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 02:24:11 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM

It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

In what universe was Newton born before Erastosthenes?

In no universe.

Also, Newtons law of universal gravitation states the following F = G (m1/m2)/(r^2) in which r is not the radius but the distance between two point masses. How did you determine the radius of the earth with that formula? Also as you can see it uses G not g (Gravitational constant, not the earth's standard gravity), so either clarify what you meant or stop naysaying without arguments

G (m1/m2)/(r^2) is wrong.

I am not determining any 'radius' of anything with any formula.

You are being rather frustrating, for you do not elaborate on anything T_T.

I quoute: spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from

How is that not determining any 'radius'?

Also G*(m1/m2)/(r^2) is not "wrong", it is the formula that goes along with Newtons law of universal gravitation, the law you brought up to start with. So start clarifying and stop contradicting yourself.

It is simply the wrong equation...

The 4 most important progression of approximations for gravity are:

• (1) Uniform downward force field
• (2) Keplers law (predicts circular)
• (3) Newtons laws (predicts elliptical orbits)
• (4) Einsteins correction to newtons laws (which predicts and elliptical spirograph like orbit)

Now it happens that (1) is used in pretty much all physics on the earth but according to round earth theory (3) is more accurate (the difference is completely insignificant and just makes calculations harder)

Also you should study a bit more of the classical celestial mechanics before working on this stuff because I think you are stuggling with it a lot..

You realize you are saying that you are wrong? The eqaution is wrong as in "it isn't the eqaution you are supposed to use". This was what I was trying to point out, the fact still remains that you were the one who first started bringing it up (you mentioned Newtons law of universal gravitation, not me)

Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

You said that, not me. (and for someone who is telling me I need to learn "classical celestial mechanics" it is quite ironic that you provide the wrong name, it is universal, not spherical law of gravitation)

Now you say Newton's laws predict eliptical orbits, they don't, that goes under the Kepler's law part. So please get your facts right before trying to correct me. All you are doing is saying X isn't possible because of law Y Z and Q. "FET isn't possible because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle!", nobody would buy that either. As to your little gibe at the end, all I would like to present you with is the following:

"Take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's" eye.

I am not saying I am right, but the way you are going about to try and disprove me is flawed and rude.

When did I conclude the value of g from stepping off of a chair? 

When did I conclude the value of g from stepping off of a chair? 

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

Granted, it says 9.8, not 9.81. I however never said that you concluded that number by stepping of a chair. According to your model, and the thought experiment with the chair, the moment I step of the chair the earth rushes towards with 9.8m/s2. My point is that you use that number without telling us where or how you determined it.

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

This is nearly correct; Newton derived his Law of Universal Gravitation from many observations of gravitational interaction, including the observed gravitational field at the Earth's surface and its radius. I don't know what the OP is attempting to prove; nobody calculated the value of g to begin with, it was measured directly. Just because you're all excited after your physics teacher showed you how to plug a few numbers into an equation and have 9.81 m s^-2 pop out doesn't mean that's how the value was determined.

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 14, 2010, 02:01:31 PM

nope. Other way around, you can measure gravity quite easily by looking at how fast things fall. Newtons law of spherical gravitation is what you use to calculate the radius of the earth from that number (it did not happen the other way around).

This is nearly correct; Newton derived his Law of Universal Gravitation from many observations of gravitational interaction, including the observed gravitational field at the Earth's surface and its radius. I don't know what the OP is attempting to prove; nobody calculated the value of g to begin with, it was measured directly. Just because you're all excited after your physics teacher showed you how to plug a few numbers into an equation and have 9.81 m s^-2 pop out doesn't mean that's how the value was determined.

My point is quite simple, the number was determined by RE'ers using the methods of RE'ers, based on a RE. Now I see the number pop up in the FAQ (the whole chair thing was a concrete example), why is the FET using that number? Just to make everything "fit"? How did they determine this number? I highly doubt they actually measured it themselves, but if they did, fine, but then show us you did so. The methods of how what where and when it was measured it is rather irrelevant to the question at hand: Why does it look like a FE'er unquestionably took a number determined by RE'ers?

My point is quite simple, the number was determined by RE'ers using the methods of RE'ers, based on a RE.

No it wasn't.

Quote from: Raver on June 15, 2010, 01:58:26 AM

My point is quite simple, the number was determined by RE'ers using the methods of RE'ers, based on a RE.

No it wasn't.

Please, when pointing out error do so with an explanation. I don't mind being wrong, but I like to no where and how so that I might learn from it. "No it wasn't." doesn't do anything for anyone, you might as well post a white space.

Please, when pointing out error do so with an explanation. I don't mind being wrong, but I like to no where and how so that I might learn from it. "No it wasn't." doesn't do anything for anyone, you might as well post a white space.

I explained in my previous post why you were wrong, and you just ignored me and repeated yourself. I don't know what else to say.

When did I conclude the value of g from stepping off of a chair? 

So you've never measured the acceleration?

In fact, according to your fall off a chair experiment, we might not even be accelerating at all!!!

XOMG!

Quote from: Raver on June 15, 2010, 02:55:34 AM

Please, when pointing out error do so with an explanation. I don't mind being wrong, but I like to no where and how so that I might learn from it. "No it wasn't." doesn't do anything for anyone, you might as well post a white space.

I explained in my previous post why you were wrong, and you just ignored me and repeated yourself. I don't know what else to say.

I didn't "ignore" your previous post, I even quoted it, I am not falslely naming things you are not either, frankly because there should be no reason to do so. At the very most it is your opinion of me, something that has no place here. Furthermore you didn't explain anything, you merely stated. In the way you have written it, it is no more true or untrue than my initial post.