Slinky in freefall

For anyone who hasn't seen one of these:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This video is very possibly faked, however it is a pretty cheap experiment to replicate. Just buy a slinky.
I have done this and can confirm that they fall exactly as depicted in these videos. You don't even need the benefit of slow motion replay. You can see it happen in real time.

The simple explanation for why the bottom doesn't fall once you let go, according to REal science, is as follows:

When you extend the slinky and hold it suspended until it has stopped bouncing, it is in a state of equilibrium. The force of gravity (acting downwards) is balanced out by the tension in the slinky (acting upwards).

When you leave go of the top, it starts to fall.

The tension at the bottom has not yet changed, so the forces are still in equilibrium.

Once the slinky has collapsed sufficiently, i.e. the top has fallen far enough, there is no longer enough tension to at the bottom to counteract the force of gravity.

The bottom of the slinky falls.


According to UA theory, shouldn't the bottom seem to fall immediately?
According to UA, while the bottom seems to "hover", it is actually accelerating upwards at the exact same speed as the Earth. What is causing this acceleration? If it is the tension in the slinky, then surely, while it is still held, this tension should be sufficient to cause the bottom to go up relative the the Earth?

For the record, I have also done this experiment in an elevator as this is the cheapest (and admittedly imperfect) replication of UA I could think of. I took no video proof, as FEtards would simply claim it is faked. However, again, it is a cheap experiment. You don't need my proof, just go out and do it. In the elevator, the bottom fell noticeably quicker than otherwise.

For me, this pretty much disproves UA and proves that the traditional model of gravitation on this small scale is a more accurate representation of reality.

The only problem with doing the experiment in an elevator is that the elevator only accelerates briefly, then it continues most of its journey at a constant rate.

Google the Equivalence Principle. There is no problem here.

In RE, gravity is in equilibrium with tension.
In FE, UA is in equilibrium with tension.
Forces result in acceleration unless balanced by another opposite equal force (Note this is not Newton's third law of motion).  Since UA is an acceleration, and gravity causes acceleration, they both are results of constant forces which can be in equilibrium with other forces. therefore the slinky can be in equilibrium either way.

Google the Equivalence Principle. There is no problem here.

How can you reference the Equivalence Principle (i.e. part of Einstein's Relativity) while blatantly discarding everything that it says about gravity? Do you eat all of these cherries that you keep picking or send them to the ice wall to feed the ninjas?

Quote from: Tausami on October 11, 2011, 12:21:10 PM

Google the Equivalence Principle. There is no problem here.

How can you reference the Equivalence Principle (i.e. part of Einstein's Relativity) while blatantly discarding everything that it says about gravity? Do you eat all of these cherries that you keep picking or send them to the ice wall to feed the ninjas?

Gravity and acceleration being indistinguishable is the only thing the EP says about gravity. In fact, that is the EP.

These aren't FEers that are saying this, these are just people who evidently have a better understanding of simple physics than you, who you would be well advised to listen to. But we forgive your angry noobdom because I actually hadn't seen that video before and it's pretty cool.

It's true that general relativity is hardly relevant as it only applies to one model, but Newton's laws of motion allow for an accelerating earth to exert forces on objects at the surface identical to those exerted by a gravity field.  But then again, Newton only made his theories after observing planetary motion, so I guess his theories can't be applied either, despite being repeatedly demonstrated in high school classes.  So if the earth is flat, newton's laws of motion appear to hold, despite their celestial origins, and so they can be applied to the FE model. Therefore there is no real logical reason why part of a theory can't be applied to another theory based on the fact that it was made using observations that contradict that theory it's being applied to.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 11, 2011, 01:16:25 PM

Quote from: Tausami on October 11, 2011, 12:21:10 PM

Google the Equivalence Principle. There is no problem here.

How can you reference the Equivalence Principle (i.e. part of Einstein's Relativity) while blatantly discarding everything that it says about gravity? Do you eat all of these cherries that you keep picking or send them to the ice wall to feed the ninjas?

Gravity and acceleration being indistinguishable is the only thing the EP says about gravity. In fact, that is the EP.

These aren't FEers that are saying this, these are just people who evidently have a better understanding of simple physics than you, who you would be well advised to listen to. But we forgive your angry noobdom because I actually hadn't seen that video before and it's pretty cool.

A better understanding of physics that includes an object not collapsing into a sphere due to its own gravity. OK. The world is flat.

Gravity and acceleration being indistinguishable is the only thing the EP says about gravity. In fact, that is the EP.

Actually, there's a bit more to the EP than that:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle

Tidal forces, and a more precise definition
So far, so simple. Too simple, in fact, in several respects. Strictly speaking, all that was said about the equivalence of gravity and acceleration is true only for gravitational fields that are strictly homogeneous. Only in homogeneous gravitational fields are all bodies - per definition - accelerated in exactly the same way, namely in exactly the same direction and at exactly the same rate; as a result, it is indeed true that a researcher inside a cabin cannot distinguish acceleration from gravity. But real gravitational fields are always to a certain extent inhomogeneous.

The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.

The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.

Very true. What is the typical FEtarded response to this?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:19:38 PM

The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.

Very true. What is the typical FEtarded response to this?

1) Stop with the personal attacks or I'll be forced to take out my bamhammer*
2) Pressure changes, and gravity does exist on a small scale.


*note: may not actually have a bamhammer

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:19:38 PM

The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.

Very true. What is the typical FEtarded response to this?

They claim the variations in earth's gravity are due to the movement of celestial objects, even though we're able to measure the pull of celestial objects and the variations caused by it are two orders of magnitude less than the local variations in earth's gravity, which also don't move about. It's like claiming the bright spot of a searchlight is caused by someone holding a candle.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 11, 2011, 06:33:53 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:19:38 PM

The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.

Very true. What is the typical FEtarded response to this?

1) Stop with the personal attacks or I'll be forced to take out my bamhammer*
2) Pressure changes, and gravity does exist on a small scale.

1) Who did I attack personally?
2) What pressure changes? How do these changes cause variations in the acceleration felt when falling?
Also, wtf? You blatantly say gravity doesn't exist in order to postulate your UA theory. Then you use gravity to paper over the cracks when this starts to fall apart. If you don't stop this, there will be no cherries left for anyone else. And if you eat them all, you'll probably get diarrhea.

Quote from: Tausami on October 11, 2011, 07:00:15 PM

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 11, 2011, 06:33:53 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:19:38 PM

The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.

Very true. What is the typical FEtarded response to this?

1) Stop with the personal attacks or I'll be forced to take out my bamhammer*
2) Pressure changes, and gravity does exist on a small scale.

1) Who did I attack personally?
2) What pressure changes? How do these changes cause variations in the acceleration felt when falling?
Also, wtf? You blatantly say gravity doesn't exist in order to postulate your UA theory. Then you use gravity to paper over the cracks when this starts to fall apart. If you don't stop this, there will be no cherries left for anyone else. And if you eat them all, you'll probably get diarrhea.

No, other people say that gravity doesn't exist. There's a difference.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 12, 2011, 12:10:52 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 11, 2011, 07:00:15 PM

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 11, 2011, 06:33:53 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:19:38 PM

The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.

Very true. What is the typical FEtarded response to this?

1) Stop with the personal attacks or I'll be forced to take out my bamhammer*
2) Pressure changes, and gravity does exist on a small scale.

1) Who did I attack personally?
2) What pressure changes? How do these changes cause variations in the acceleration felt when falling?
Also, wtf? You blatantly say gravity doesn't exist in order to postulate your UA theory. Then you use gravity to paper over the cracks when this starts to fall apart. If you don't stop this, there will be no cherries left for anyone else. And if you eat them all, you'll probably get diarrhea.

No, other people say that gravity doesn't exist. There's a difference.

OK, so if gravity exists, then why UA? If gravity is much weaker than is widely accepted, then how did you zetetically ascertain its actual effects/strength.