That's strange, because I had the same feeling when I was launching out from the loading stations at Rock'n'Rollercoaster at Walt Disney World and Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point. But that whole thing was just a side thought that popped into my head. I personally do not know much about it, but then again, I sincerely doubt you do either.
As for your accelerometer statement, what you are saying may explain the phenomenon in FET, but trying to use it as proof against RET just proves that you don't know how it works (some physicist...). An accelerometer measures acceleration by the movements of an internal ball. If the accelerometer is stationary, the force of gravity still acts on the ball which pulls it down and the machine reads it. If the machine itself is experiencing the same acceleration as the ball, the ball will not move in relation to the machine and, therefore, the machine will read 0m/s^2.
I think you are forgetting that it is relative. If you are stationary and everything else is moving, you are actually moving with respect to everything else. If the air is rushing past you because it is moving, you will feel as though you are moving. If your eyes tell you the earth is coming at you as is everything else, your brain will interpret that as you moving.
Ah. As I said, that was just a random thought that popped into my head. Btw, I wasn't confusing gravity with G-force, I was just making a comparison.
No one has ever explicitly seen or detected the cause of UA either.
UA is caused by dark energy. Even RE scientists will claim the universe is 70% dark energy. How does all that energy manifest itself? As the driving force for the universe.
I bolded my point. Given that no one has explicitly seen either mechanism in action, they are equally absurd in this context. Also, what IOA said.
UA is a very concise and simple solution to the causes of why things fall to earth. Gravity suggesting that everything projects a force on everything else, with no additional power source driving all this pulling and attractive force, that no one can see or verify, is a lot more complicated than accepting everything accelerates in one direction due to the enormous amount of dark energy in the universe. I'm sorry but this is where FET must invoke Occam's Razor. It is the simplest and most concise solution.
I do not subscribe to Occam's Razor (read the 2nd paragraph of the Wikipedia article), but I do subscribe to the idea of agreeing to disagree. In fact, that was my entire point.
1) For an object that is experiencing no acceleration in a given reference frame, for every force there is an equal and opposite force. The Earth is pushing against you, and you are pushing against the Earth. This proves nothing.
1) It proves nothing and likewise it also disproves nothing.
TB mentioned how you "feel the Earth pushing up against your feet" or something like that. My point was that it could be interpreted either way.
I'll leave 2 out because a) it was a fairly irrelevant and "stupid" post on my part, and b) because IOA continues the thought better.
3) "Puller particles" are no more absurd than universal acceleration. Both rely on mechanisms that we have yet to observe explicitly. Your next statement proves this as you speculate on what might be causing universal acceleration.
3) As you said before every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Every ying has its yang. Every positive can be matched with a negative. So how would pusher particles or anti-puller particles manifest themselves? Do they rip things apart? I think this way madness lies.
I also said "For an object that is experiencing no acceleration in a given reference frame." Gravity causes acceleration. But this is exactly what I was referencing in my post; there is no empirical evidence. All you did was speculate. Everything we are currently talking about is speculation. What makes anything more absurd than anything else?
As a side note, have you noticed how whenever TB joins a thread all other FEers disappear? Might this have something to do with the fact that no one agrees with him? If they do agree with him, they have to realize that they produce much more effective arguments than he does. TB is one of the worst debaters I've seen for FET.
As for your side note, why would we need to help Tom Bishop? We usually bail from the thread confident he will be able to answer all your queries. Most of us have no where near his level of FE expertise and I always fear, should an REr be lucky enough to engage Tom in a thread, the last thing they will need is my input. A mountain goat will always prefer to sip from the source of a stream where the water is at its most pure. And for my part, I can sit back and read, hoping to get dowsed in some of the spray.
Actually, you are probably the best debater I've seen supporting FET. TB is always biased and tends to deflect questions he can't/doesn't want to answer. You, on the other hand, actually post, and respond to, real content, or at the very least more so than anyone else supporting FET. In fact, the italicized sentence from my initial post was aimed at you.