Most FET's tend to agree that gravity definitely exists. My question is does anyone have an idea what proportion of our "gravity" we feel is from acceleration of the earth upwards, and what proportion is from the gravitational field from the mass of the Earth?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
Quote from: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 08:42:42 AMMost FET's tend to agree that gravity definitely exists. My question is does anyone have an idea what proportion of our "gravity" we feel is from acceleration of the earth upwards, and what proportion is from the gravitational field from the mass of the Earth?Here we go again. No FE theorist to my knowledge believes in "gravity". Everyone agrees that celestial objects exhibit gravitation. The infinite plane model of John Davis has no issue with classical measurement of G (perhaps John himself does, I am not sure. His model can work equally well with any given value of G by varying the minimum depth of the plane). If GR is true the earth must exhibit some gravitation.
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 01:34:21 PMQuote from: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 08:42:42 AMMost FET's tend to agree that gravity definitely exists. My question is does anyone have an idea what proportion of our "gravity" we feel is from acceleration of the earth upwards, and what proportion is from the gravitational field from the mass of the Earth?Here we go again. No FE theorist to my knowledge believes in "gravity". Everyone agrees that celestial objects exhibit gravitation. The infinite plane model of John Davis has no issue with classical measurement of G (perhaps John himself does, I am not sure. His model can work equally well with any given value of G by varying the minimum depth of the plane). If GR is true the earth must exhibit some gravitation. As I recall, John Davis's model does include gravity due to mass as supported by Gauss's law (which is derived from Newton's laws).
Can you please explain how the celestial bodies exhibit gravitaiton, and the Earth must exhibit gravitation, but you do not believe in gravity? Sure, you may not agree with the gravitational constant, but obviously you agree that a similar form of gravity exists? No?
Quote from: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 05:59:11 PMCan you please explain how the celestial bodies exhibit gravitaiton, and the Earth must exhibit gravitation, but you do not believe in gravity? Sure, you may not agree with the gravitational constant, but obviously you agree that a similar form of gravity exists? No?No, I do not believe in gravity or gravity in a similar form (regardless of the value of G). Newton was wrong in several respects. If GR is true (or some reasonable approximation) than gravity does not exist. Gravitation is not a force. Newton's gravity does not exist. Even the latest quantum models describe gravitation a geometrical property and not a force. Do you see now how one can say that gravitation exists but that gravity is not a force or does not exist?
I'm using the scientific definition of force gravity. Perhaps it would help if you took a physics primer before continuing.
Newton was wrong in several respects. If GR is true (or some reasonable approximation) than gravity does not exist. Gravitation is not a force. Newton's gravity does not exist. Even the latest quantum models describe gravitation a geometrical property and not a force. Do you see now how one can say that gravitation exists but that gravity is not a force or does not exist?
Do you see how one can say that this is an unnecessarily pedantic distinction?
Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 01:20:03 AMI don't really see what you are trying to ask, or debate. It is a tenant of FET that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong. After all, there is no solid evidence that gravity as a force exists. The mechanism in which it works cannot be explained. No graviton has been discovered. It also seems odd that in quantom mechanics, gravity is ignored, as well as the fact that the three understood fundamental forces are said to arise from a single interaction and thus are related to each other and yet gravity, the unknown force, is all by itself. It seems a bit hypocritical that you ask evidence from us, when you actually have none of your own.Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:20:22 AMClearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation. And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?So your saying EnglishGentleman is wrong?
I don't really see what you are trying to ask, or debate. It is a tenant of FET that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong. After all, there is no solid evidence that gravity as a force exists. The mechanism in which it works cannot be explained. No graviton has been discovered. It also seems odd that in quantom mechanics, gravity is ignored, as well as the fact that the three understood fundamental forces are said to arise from a single interaction and thus are related to each other and yet gravity, the unknown force, is all by itself. It seems a bit hypocritical that you ask evidence from us, when you actually have none of your own.
Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation. And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?
No, because there is no disagreement between our statements.
He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.
Well I will rephrase my original question. Most FE's agree that gravitation exists and that mass attracts mass. What proportion of the "gravity" (ie 9.81 m/s/s holding us to the ground) we feel on earth is from acceleration of the earth? and what proportion is from the gravitational field from our mass attracting the Earths mass.
I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation... If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.
That's from a different thread, and not all that relevant here. He/she even kindly reworded the question using your preferred terminology in the post above yours, Ski.
Quote from: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 08:28:59 PMWell I will rephrase my original question. Most FE's agree that gravitation exists and that mass attracts mass. What proportion of the "gravity" (ie 9.81 m/s/s holding us to the ground) we feel on earth is from acceleration of the earth? and what proportion is from the gravitational field from our mass attracting the Earths mass.I'm not sure that most FE advocates agree that mass attracts mass. Perhaps they do. I can only speak for myself and repeat the same answer I gave to you earlier today:Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 01:41:28 AMI've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation... If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.You just sourced your own thoughts, and provided no reasoning or scientific explanation. Anyone else have a thought on the proportions?
Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 07:48:12 PMNewton was wrong in several respects. If GR is true (or some reasonable approximation) than gravity does not exist. Gravitation is not a force. Newton's gravity does not exist. Even the latest quantum models describe gravitation a geometrical property and not a force. Do you see now how one can say that gravitation exists but that gravity is not a force or does not exist?However, as you well know, most scientific models agree that Newtonian gravity is an acceptable approximation when relativistic and/or quantum conditions are not relevant (such as discussing the shape of the earth). Do you see how one can say that this is an unnecessarily pedantic distinction?
I'm not sure that most FE advocates agree that mass attracts mass. Perhaps they do. I can only speak for myself and repeat the same answer I gave to you earlier today: