Explanation of FE gravity requested

Simply requesting an explanation of FE gravity for someone who is unfamiliar with the subject

Simply requesting an explanation of FE gravity for someone who is unfamiliar with the subject

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.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

lol. Nope

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

Quote from: Randomonium on August 11, 2012, 06:39:54 PM

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

you cannot discern between the two. This was talked about in another thread.

Quote from: Randomonium on August 11, 2012, 06:39:54 PM

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

I feel that I am going towards the floor. Also, I would never be able to see graviton particles affecting my body, since my eyes aren't capable of detecting sub-atomic objects.

Even if I was living in the bizarro world where earth was flat and UA existed, I don't think you would actually be able to notice a difference between the floor going up or me going down.

Quote from: Randomonium on August 11, 2012, 06:39:54 PM

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

Another great contribution by our greatest FE scientist!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2012, 08:27:20 PM

Quote from: Randomonium on August 11, 2012, 06:39:54 PM

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

you cannot discern between the two. This was talked about in another thread.

The point is that one is seen, while the other is not seen, regardless whether they have the same effects.

It's a matter of visible vs. invisible. I believe in the visible, while you roundies believe in the invisible.

One can always say that "this undiscovered thing caused that" or "some supernatural force did it" about anything and that explanation will have equal predictive power.

A cause which is visible and direct is always stronger than something invisible and undiscovered. It's a matter of known vs. unknown, rational vs. irrational. One is a direct visual cause, and the other is an act of the imagination.

Please be aware that it is not solely people who belieue the earth to be flat, that question the conuentional ideas of grauity: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55007.0.html#.UDNLr6llSZk

Mizuki x

It's a matter of visible vs. invisible. I believe in the visible, while you roundies believe in the invisible.

So I take it you don't buy into the nonsensical germ theory of disease?

I can't see any damn viruses making me sick, you're not going to fool me into getting an injection.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2012, 01:08:04 AM

It's a matter of visible vs. invisible. I believe in the visible, while you roundies believe in the invisible.

So I take it you don't buy into the nonsensical germ theory of disease?

I can't see any damn viruses making me sick, you're not going to fool me into getting an injection.

Or  electromagnetism. If you don't see the waves, they don't exist, so the computer Tom Bishop is writing on must be an abacus.

We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.

We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.

Ha, you can't see viruses using normal microscopes that are available to the public.  I wonder why that is?

You can see bacteria, but you're making a huge leap between seeing microorganisms and assuming they're what's making me sick.

We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.

You can see electromagnetic waves in a slit experiment? Boy, what I would like to have glasses like yours. Each individual wave measures about 600 nanometers, so I think you should sell your glasses to NASA for a gazillion dollars. They would gladly pay.

What you really see in the slit experiment is the aggregate result of countless waves, or countless photons. You deduce from a mathematical model applied to the resulting patterns of light and darkness that photons were waves in this experiment (but not in others).

Exactly the same happens in the Cavendish experiment. You see the aggregate result of countless gravitational waves or pulls (or whatever you want to call them). You deduce from this and a few other known physical facts that one weight produced a gravitational pull on the other.

Your notion of what should be called "seeing" and what not is totally driven by your word games, not by physics.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2012, 08:27:20 PM

Quote from: Randomonium on August 11, 2012, 06:39:54 PM

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

you cannot discern between the two. This was talked about in another thread.

SNAP!!!!!!!!  That is awesome.

One can always say that "this undiscovered thing caused that" or "some supernatural force did it" about anything and that explanation will have equal predictive power.

A cause which is visible and direct is always stronger than something invisible and undiscovered. It's a matter of known vs. unknown, rational vs. irrational. One is a direct visual cause, and the other is an act of the imagination.

What about the unknown, unseen universal accelerator that pushes the sun, moon and other celestial objects.  This UA is every bit (if not more) mysterious than gravity.

We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.

Let's talk about the difference here... Virus' are actual THINGS you can see in a microscope.  Gravity isn't caused by invisible particles in the air that haven't been detected, it's caused by the fact that objects attract to larger objects.  Claiming that gravity doesn't exist because you can't see it is like claiming that a universal accelerator doesn't exist because you can't see that.  As you know, you wouldn't see the force caused by the universal accelerator above the ground because the UA is BELOW the earth.  The same principle exists with gravity.  You're talking about gravity like there are magical little gravity particles in the air that pull everything downward.  No wonder you don't believe in gravity.  You should pick up a book written in the 20th or 21st century on astronomy and astrophysics, and you may properly understand how physics work

See, the laws of gravity have been proven.  Not only because things fall to earth, but because celestial bodies in space (stars, planets, moons, planetary rings, satellites, etc.) abide by the same gravitational phenomenon we experience on Earth.  Gravity not only [magically] pulls things toward earth, but it also [magically] keeps planets and comets in orbit around the sun, keeps stars in (somewhat of an) orbit in a galaxy, keeps moons in orbit around planets, and keeps satellites in orbit around the Earth.  But, I guess if you just deny the laws of physics, anything's possible.

Your earlier question, "if you jump off a chair, are you falling or is the Earth rising..." that argument is relative.  To me, it feels like I'm falling.  It kind of look like the earth is rising... yes... but, to someone who's watching me, it looks to them like I'm falling.  If we drive 100 miles per hour next to each other, would you conclude that we're stationary and the whole world is moving backwards?  Perception doesn't define reality.  So, if you think the world is rising, that doesn't mean it is.  Similarly, just becasue it FEELS like I'm falling, it doesn't mean I am.  But, when it comes to perception, when objects (parts of rockets, etc.) fall to earth, it looks to me like they're falling to earth rather than the earth rising to meet them... Just like Shumacher-Leevy 9 FELL to Jupiter rather than Jupiter RISING to meet it.  But, again... if you just deny physics and everything we know about space, I guess anything's possible.

But, let's talk about that.  Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second.  Let's say gravity ISN'T real.  Let's say that the earth is rising.  There is still NO proof of any universal accelerator, there is NO proof that the sun and moon are 32 miles across of whatever garbage you guys say it is, there is NO proof of any sky gears, bendy light or moon shrimp, and there is still NO proof that the earth is flat.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2012, 02:34:48 AM

We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.

You can see electromagnetic waves in a slit experiment? Boy, what I would like to have glasses like yours. Each individual wave measures about 600 nanometers, so I think you should sell your glasses to NASA for a gazillion dollars. They would gladly pay.

Light is a form of EM waves.

What you really see in the slit experiment is the aggregate result of countless waves, or countless photons. You deduce from a mathematical model applied to the resulting patterns of light and darkness that photons were waves in this experiment (but not in others).

Right. that's what I said. You see waves in the double slit experiment. That they are formed of countless photons is no different than ocean waves being formed of countless water molecules. But ocean waves are still waves, and light waves are still waves.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2012, 01:36:11 AM

One can always say that "this undiscovered thing caused that" or "some supernatural force did it" about anything and that explanation will have equal predictive power.

A cause which is visible and direct is always stronger than something invisible and undiscovered. It's a matter of known vs. unknown, rational vs. irrational. One is a direct visual cause, and the other is an act of the imagination.

What about the unknown, unseen universal accelerator that pushes the sun, moon and other celestial objects.  This UA is every bit (if not more) mysterious than gravity.

Distinct difference. I make no claim for what pushes the earth. I can see it rise up directly, but I do not see the cause behind it. RE'ers make direct positive claims for gravity, namely that it exists as sub-atomic gravitation messenger particles or a bending of space, depending on who you talk to.

Let's talk about the difference here... Virus' are actual THINGS you can see in a microscope.

Correct. We've seen viruses. That's direct evidence of their existence. We have not seen direct evidence of gravitons/bending space, therefore the germ analogy was bunk. I didn't propose that analogy. Please follow along with the thread.

Gravity isn't caused by invisible particles in the air that haven't been detected, it's caused by the fact that objects attract to larger objects.

RET invokes a bending of space/gravitons to explain gravity.

Claiming that gravity doesn't exist because you can't see it is like claiming that a universal accelerator doesn't exist because you can't see that.

I make no claim for what moves the earth. I can only say that it moves.

As you know, you wouldn't see the force caused by the universal accelerator above the ground because the UA is BELOW the earth.  The same principle exists with gravity.

Gravity is below the earth? 
 

You're talking about gravity like there are magical little gravity particles in the air that pull everything downward.

According to QM there are.

See, the laws of gravity have been proven.  Not only because things fall to earth, but because celestial bodies in space (stars, planets, moons, planetary rings, satellites, etc.) abide by the same gravitational phenomenon we experience on Earth.  Gravity not only [magically] pulls things toward earth, but it also [magically] keeps planets and comets in orbit around the sun, keeps stars in (somewhat of an) orbit in a galaxy, keeps moons in orbit around planets, and keeps satellites in orbit around the Earth.  But, I guess if you just deny the laws of physics, anything's possible.

There is no evidence that gravity is the cause for the attraction seen in the heavens. There are several other phenomenons which can attract.

Correct. We've seen viruses. That's direct evidence of their existence. We have not seen direct evidence of gravitons/bending space, therefore the germ analogy was bunk. I didn't propose that analogy. Please follow along with the thread.

You said, "We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science."  Perhaps in Flat Earth Language that means something else, but I interpret that as meaning, "we can see germs but not gravity, and that is evidence that germs exist and gravity doesn't."

RET invokes a bending of space/gravitons to explain gravity.

Bending of space.  FET invokes a bending of light to explain why you see the sun straight ahead when it should never be on a Flat Earth.  Nonetheless, disproving RET doesn't prove FET.  FET isn't called "Earth Not Round Theory," it's called "Flat Earth Theory."  So, it seems that your job should be proving the Earth is FLAT.  Why do you insist on first proving the Earth is not round?  If you prove it's flat, you will inherently prove it isn't round.  So, whatever it is you mean by "bending of gravitons (whatever the hell a graviton is)," that does nothing to prove FET.

I make no claim for what moves the earth. I can only say that it moves.

That's convenient... If I cared just an iota more, I would actually search the forum for a quote where you attribute gravity (or the supposed illusion thereof) to a Universal Accelerator.

Gravity is below the earth? 

Okay, we'll go with that.  I mean, gravity isn't a "thing." So, it isn't anywhere.  Just like, inertia isn't a thing, but it is a force that does exist.  It isn't caused by inertiatons, and not being able to "see" microbes that cause inertia doesn't mean that inertia doesn't exist.  I guess, I was trying to make a comparison between the force that gravity and/or a UA causes.  And, in an attempt to use language that you might relate to, I eluded to it being under the earth.
 

According to QM there are.

No it doesn't.  Some quantum physicists use hypothetical gravitons to make gravity jive with the idea of QM.  But, it doesn't mean that "gravitons" are some kind of legitimate, widely accepted explanation for how gravity works.  Gravitons (imho) don't exist any more than space being filled with Ether.  Stop picking and choosing which math you're going to follow that proves your theory.

There is no evidence that gravity is the cause for the attraction seen in the heavens. There are several other phenomenons which can attract.

"The Heavens."  See what I mean, people?  There is tons and TONS of evidence that gravity is the cause for these things.  Space craft we send to "the heavens" to observe these things are VERY MUCH based on the gravitational pull of other objects.  We have it down to so much of a science that the window of opportunity to reach distant objects relies on highly percise calculations that rely on a very deep understanding of how gravity works.  The accuracy of these calculations provides SOLID proof of the validity of this understanding.  But again, even if we give you the benefit of the doubt that gravity isn't real, there is CERTAINLY no evidence that anything else is causing the way celestial bodies behave, and this in no way provides ANY evidence that the world is flat.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2012, 06:10:51 AM

What about the unknown, unseen universal accelerator that pushes the sun, moon and other celestial objects.  This UA is every bit (if not more) mysterious than gravity.

Distinct difference. I make no claim for what pushes the earth. I can see it rise up directly, but I do not see the cause behind it. RE'ers make direct positive claims for gravity, namely that it exists as sub-atomic gravitation messenger particles or a bending of space depending on who you talk to.

Do you or do you not contend that the same mysterious force that accelerates the flat earth also accelerates the celestial objects (hence the term "universal" acceleration)?  If so, then you are invoking an invisible, magical force that has no better explanation than gravity.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2012, 07:46:50 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2012, 06:10:51 AM

What about the unknown, unseen universal accelerator that pushes the sun, moon and other celestial objects.  This UA is every bit (if not more) mysterious than gravity.

Distinct difference. I make no claim for what pushes the earth. I can see it rise up directly, but I do not see the cause behind it. RE'ers make direct positive claims for gravity, namely that it exists as sub-atomic gravitation messenger particles or a bending of space depending on who you talk to.

Do you or do you not contend that the same mysterious force that accelerates the flat earth also accelerates the celestial objects (hence the term "universal" acceleration)?  If so, then you are invoking an invisible, magical force that has no better explanation than gravity.

...and hasn't been proven.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

What a silly way to ask that question.

Correct question: Step off of a chair.  Do you see yourself falling to the Earth, or do you see the Earth rising upward to meet you?

Correct answer: based on that extremely limited/intentionally misleading observation, it is impossible to tell.

One can always say that "this undiscovered thing caused that" or "some supernatural force did it" about anything and that explanation will have equal predictive power.

Your 'theory' makes a falsifiable prediction.  The amount of energy required to constantly accelerate the Earth approaches infinity as the Earth's velocity approaches the speed of light.  In short, your theory violates basically all of the conservation laws, and these laws are well understood.  You have no idea where this energy comes from, or what it is.

I make no claim for what pushes the earth.

False.  You claim that an infinite quantity of energy is accelerating the Earth toward the speed of light.

RE'ers make direct positive claims for gravity, namely that it exists as sub-atomic gravitation messenger particles or a bending of space depending on who you talk to.

False.  Modern physics claims to know that mass attracts.  That's about it.  We've developed some sophisticated ways of measuring the proportion/strength/condition of that attraction, but no physicist alive today believes that we have a fundamental theory of gravity.

There is no evidence that gravity is the cause for the attraction seen in the heavens. There are several other phenomenons which can attract.

False.  It can be proven geometrically, and it has been several times over using different geometric and mathematical methods.  I hosted the link here someplace.  Search for "Feynman's Lost Lecture." 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2012, 07:46:50 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2012, 06:10:51 AM

What about the unknown, unseen universal accelerator that pushes the sun, moon and other celestial objects.  This UA is every bit (if not more) mysterious than gravity.

Distinct difference. I make no claim for what pushes the earth. I can see it rise up directly, but I do not see the cause behind it. RE'ers make direct positive claims for gravity, namely that it exists as sub-atomic gravitation messenger particles or a bending of space depending on who you talk to.

Do you or do you not contend that the same mysterious force that accelerates the flat earth also accelerates the celestial objects (hence the term "universal" acceleration)?  If so, then you are invoking an invisible, magical force that has no better explanation than gravity.

In fact UA has a far worse explanation than gravity because we don't know what it interacts with. Something underneath the earth?  Dependant on mass/charge? Does it penetrate the earth to interact with the stars? Why 3000 miles?

This might be silly (I know basically nothing about physics outside of its uses in navigation), but If we are accelerating through the cosmos at nearly the speed of light would we not be noticing differences in the stars? like permanent differences?

See, to me, if we are accelerating and we pass a star how does that star become visible again? If we pass a star it would go under the Earth, so how do we see the star again. Now when I say star I do mean noticeable ones, ones that make up constellations and such. If Orion appears low near the horizon, how does it suddenly appear in a completely different place a couple days later? We passed orion as we are accelerating right?

If celestial gears are doing this it still does not make sense. We would eventually pass them right? Unless the stars are moving on their own. They like Earth so much that they want to stay near us forever because we are so damn cool.

Im confused.

Quote from: trig on August 21, 2012, 05:22:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2012, 02:34:48 AM

We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.

You can see electromagnetic waves in a slit experiment? Boy, what I would like to have glasses like yours. Each individual wave measures about 600 nanometers, so I think you should sell your glasses to NASA for a gazillion dollars. They would gladly pay.

Light is a form of EM waves.

Quote

What you really see in the slit experiment is the aggregate result of countless waves, or countless photons. You deduce from a mathematical model applied to the resulting patterns of light and darkness that photons were waves in this experiment (but not in others).

Right. that's what I said. you see waves in the double slit experiment. That they are formed of countless photons is no different than ocean waves being formed of countless water molecules. Ocean waves are still waves, and light waves are still waves.

You have no problem with only seeing the result of trillions of photons, not being able to see any of the individual waves, but you have a huge problem with seeing only the aggregate result of trillions of gravitational waves, not being able to see any of the individual waves. How hypocritical.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2012, 08:27:20 PM

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

What a silly way to ask that question.

Yes, this is a classic false dilemma type fallacy.  This is Tom in his natural habitat.  Marvalous to watch.

It irritates me that not even the RE'ers ever bother to point out that variances in g at different places utterly disprove UA. If every time UA was brought up the RE'ers remembered to point this out, UA would soon die an ignominious death, as such a ridiculous theory deserves to. Different parts of the earth cannot be moving at different speeds yet remain the same distance from each other.
Sometimes the FE'ers bleat that "the heavens" make some sort of magic pull to cause this, but when challenged to explain this further and why the g variances don't move with the sky, they remain mute. It's great comedy value.