Human's sense of falling?

The earth is accelerating upward, as is easily measured by an accelerometer. No measurable force is being applied to a falling-body. In either scenario it is more proper to say the earth is accelerating upward (or in a globe's case "outward").

If being pulled down by Newtonian Gravity was "normal" as he stated, the sky diver would never notice a "falling sensation" because he would undergo continuous acceleration (which we know is not true, b/c we can measure it's absence with an accelerometer-- or in this case one's bowels).

Why do you continue to argue about things you do not understand? If you think you understand it, take a physics class and prove to yourself and others that you aren't just in denial about your misunderstandings of physical phenomena.

Quote from: jraffield1 on October 22, 2011, 08:39:24 PM

In RE you have invisible puller particles, in FE you have invisible pusher particles. Both sound equally odd.

Why does whatever is pushing the earth need to be invisible? Pusher particles don't sound odd. Puller particles sound odd. How can a particle pull?

Quote

But since gravity matches observations better than UA, we are brought to the conclusion that the Earth is in fact round.

Gravity doesn't match observations. No one has seen gravity. But everyone can see the upwards movement of the earth.

Except the rate at which things fall on earth is not consistent, so "everyone can see the upwards movement of the earth" doesnt really fit observations either.  In fact it really destroys the idea of an upwards moving earth.  For example things in certain parts of canada weigh less, even with equal masses.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11826-satellites-solve-mystery-of-low-gravity-over-canada.html

So there is still no answer as to how this is possible in the FE model, because well, its not possible?

Except the rate at which things fall on earth is not consistent, so "everyone can see the upwards movement of the earth" doesnt really fit observations either.  In fact it really destroys the idea of an upwards moving earth.  For example things in certain parts of canada weigh less, even with equal masses.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11826-satellites-solve-mystery-of-low-gravity-over-canada.html

Apparently the heavens have a gravitational pull which causes gravitational differences on the Earth's surface.

NOW gravitation is ok, but not on Earth. Definitely not something absurd like that...

One thing that FE'ers never consider is that while we do measure an upward force, that does not mean that the Earth is accelerating upward. What is being measured isn't the pull of gravity, its the acceleration due to the normal force of the ground.

For example, if you lean against a wall you feel a force pushing you back (otherwise you'd fall through the wall  ). The existence of a force, and an acceleration, doesn't mean that the wall is moving, it is simply a results of Newtonian physics.

The differences due to location of gravitational pull are due to local mass.

The differences due to location of gravitational pull are due to local mass.

Exactly, that's what RE'ers have been saying for years 

The differences due to location of gravitational pull are due to local mass.

VVV

The differences due to location of gravitational pull are due to local mass.

I think you just gave up the cause.

John hasn't given up anything. His Flat Earth can have gravity.

The differences due to location of gravitational pull are due to local mass.

Thank you john, but i already new why it made sense in your theory, unfortunately there is a significant portion of the FE community that denies that mass is the cause of gravitation on earth.  That question was directed at them, sorry for the confusion.

Anyone have any clue why things in Canada weigh less in the UA model?

Anyone have any clue why things in Canada weigh less in the UA model?

Apparently celestial gravity causes such things.

And yet... no matter where the celestial bodies are in their orbit, or what time of the day, these anomalies do not move. Strange that while the heavens are in flux their influence is stationary.