Gravity vs upward motion

  • 69 Replies
  • 14695 Views
Gravity vs upward motion
« on: May 11, 2013, 03:54:34 PM »
There is no downward force and all objects move up. Only a free object will move down, because we move up. As long as an object is connected to another, it will move upwards with it. Laws of Newton.

There are no sideway forces, right? So a brick wall will stay stationary if you put it on the road.
Let's pretend this line is the wall   |
There is a car traveling in one direction, towards the wall  <--.
 The car hits the wall  | <--- Do the bricks go in the opposite direction -->?  Because the car pivots it? No. Why? Because there are no forces acting upon it in the other direction. Same happens if you have an upward movement ^ and no downward movement. You could move an object so it is completely off balance, as long as it is connected to the rest of the world it will move upwards. Once you push the object away, so it floats free in the air, it can move downwards, because the earth is moving upwards.

This does not make sense and you cannot image a wooden board for example to be all the way out, with only a small part connected to another object.

____     (wooden board)
| (object attached to the world)
----------------------  (earth, constantly moving upwards)

It will fall down, and the falling down cannot occur if there is no downward force. Just like the bricks from the wall will not start flying in the opposite direction if a car hits it. The downward force we witness is gravity and not an upward motion from earth.
Hello!

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2013, 04:11:08 PM »
UA is only a theory. It is not the 100% accepted reason we stay on earth. Some us agree with a sort of gravity, our weight holds us down, etc.

« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 04:56:14 PM by mbone99 »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2013, 04:38:12 PM »
Honestly that is a weak argument against UA.

The UA is what is accelerating the Earth, which blocks the UA from objects on its surface.  This means that everything on the surface has no force being applied to it upward, allowing the Earth to run into them.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2013, 04:54:11 PM »
Honestly that is a weak argument against UA.

The UA is what is accelerating the Earth, which blocks the UA from objects on its surface.  This means that everything on the surface has no force being applied to it upward, allowing the Earth to run into them.

That is what it would if the object was freely floating in the air. Let me illustrate it, explaining it more into detail. I am standing on a flat roof top with a wooden board. I place the wooden board on top of the roof, with nothing of it sticking out. Then I will slowly start to push the board outwards. As I start the board remains stable. It will go upwards with the same speed as the rest of the earth. Nothing changes to that as I will continue to push the wooden board outwards. At some point it will be on the verge of falling. It balances back and forth, but there is no way this is possible if there is no force acting down on the wooden board. Yet it does, so there must be a force acting down on the board.

As I explained with the example. There are no sideway forces. A wall stays where it is. Now a car hits the wall. The only force applied to it is in the direction the car travels. If the car goes from right to left, the forces which are applied are from right to left. If the car will hit the wall, the bricks will fly the same direction as the car travelled and in this case from right to left. The bricks do not all of a sudden start to fly in the opposite direction, since there is no force applied to the other direction.
Hello!

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2013, 04:59:19 PM »
Honestly that is a weak argument against UA.

The UA is what is accelerating the Earth, which blocks the UA from objects on its surface.  This means that everything on the surface has no force being applied to it upward, allowing the Earth to run into them.

That is what it would if the object was freely floating in the air. Let me illustrate it, explaining it more into detail. I am standing on a flat roof top with a wooden board. I place the wooden board on top of the roof, with nothing of it sticking out. Then I will slowly start to push the board outwards. As I start the board remains stable. It will go upwards with the same speed as the rest of the earth. Nothing changes to that as I will continue to push the wooden board outwards. At some point it will be on the verge of falling. It balances back and forth, but there is no way this is possible if there is no force acting down on the wooden board. Yet it does, so there must be a force acting down on the board.

Or nothing is acting on the board, and it's own weight causes it tip back and forth.

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2013, 05:04:27 PM »
Or nothing is acting on the board, and it's own weight causes it tip back and forth.

Have you ever taken a ride in a rollercoaster? If you go down, you feel very light. If you go up you feel pushed down in your seat. As you go down you start to feel weightless, you weigh a lot  less. Have you changed from person? Did you gain weight while in the rollercoaster? No, these are forces acting upon you. The weight of an object also does not cause the object to fly sideways all of a sudden or does it?

Weight has nothing to do with tipping back and forth.
Hello!

*

Junker

  • 3925
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2013, 06:02:51 PM »
UA and gravity are the same in FET, for those who are proponents of UA.  The equivalence principle says that the force felt by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference is the same as the observer would feel under the influence of gravity. 

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2013, 06:28:18 PM »
UA and gravity are the same in FET, for those who are proponents of UA.  The equivalence principle says that the force felt by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference is the same as the observer would feel under the influence of gravity.

That is as if one goes into one direction and the object appears to move in the other direction. That is not applicable to the situation I explained. Because the object never leaves the other object completely for it to appears to move into the other direction
Hello!

*

Junker

  • 3925
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2013, 06:37:49 PM »
UA and gravity are the same in FET, for those who are proponents of UA.  The equivalence principle says that the force felt by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference is the same as the observer would feel under the influence of gravity.

That is as if one goes into one direction and the object appears to move in the other direction. That is not applicable to the situation I explained. Because the object never leaves the other object completely for it to appears to move into the other direction

I must just not be understanding your scenario.  To me, everything on the earth is in the same non-intertial frame of reference in the UA model.  All other frames of reference occur independently, which would be the same with gravity or UA.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2013, 06:44:13 PM »
Honestly that is a weak argument against UA.

The UA is what is accelerating the Earth, which blocks the UA from objects on its surface.  This means that everything on the surface has no force being applied to it upward, allowing the Earth to run into them.

That is what it would if the object was freely floating in the air. Let me illustrate it, explaining it more into detail. I am standing on a flat roof top with a wooden board. I place the wooden board on top of the roof, with nothing of it sticking out. Then I will slowly start to push the board outwards. As I start the board remains stable. It will go upwards with the same speed as the rest of the earth. Nothing changes to that as I will continue to push the wooden board outwards. At some point it will be on the verge of falling. It balances back and forth, but there is no way this is possible if there is no force acting down on the wooden board. Yet it does, so there must be a force acting down on the board.

As I explained with the example. There are no sideway forces. A wall stays where it is. Now a car hits the wall. The only force applied to it is in the direction the car travels. If the car goes from right to left, the forces which are applied are from right to left. If the car will hit the wall, the bricks will fly the same direction as the car travelled and in this case from right to left. The bricks do not all of a sudden start to fly in the opposite direction, since there is no force applied to the other direction.

In this scenario, the free end isn't being brought down, but the fixed end is continually being pushed up.  This would cause the free end to drop like a lever.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2013, 06:47:18 PM »
Stationary objects move a long with the earth. A wooden board on top of a flat roof is no exception. There is no way the wooden board can tip over to falling if it is constantly accelerating upwards. The only explanation is if there is a downward force active. The force RE knows as gravity.

Hello!

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2013, 06:48:51 PM »
Stationary objects move a long with the earth. A wooden board on top of a flat roof is no exception. There is no way the wooden board can tip over to falling if it is constantly accelerating upwards. The only explanation is if there is a downward force active. The force RE knows as gravity.

Force would be applied to only a portion of the board.  If a significant amount of the board is not affected by this force, its going to tip over.  It's a simple lever.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2013, 06:57:49 PM »
Stationary objects move a long with the earth. A wooden board on top of a flat roof is no exception. There is no way the wooden board can tip over to falling if it is constantly accelerating upwards. The only explanation is if there is a downward force active. The force RE knows as gravity.

Force would be applied to only a portion of the board.  If a significant amount of the board is not affected by this force, its going to tip over.  It's a simple lever.


The entire earth is pushed upwards, with everything on it. There are no parts which are pushed upwards more, as this would rip the earth apart. Back to my wall on the road. If a car pushes it evenly, will it move with the car or will it slide to one of the sides? If forces are applied evenly it will move forward. If the forces are off balanced, one side receives more force, causing it to tip.

With earth and UA the entire earth with the air and all the things on it, moves upwards. The air beneath the wooden board pushes with equal force as the roofs building, what it would never causes to tip over. That would be impossible.
Hello!

*

Junker

  • 3925
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2013, 07:13:46 PM »
Stationary objects move a long with the earth. A wooden board on top of a flat roof is no exception. There is no way the wooden board can tip over to falling if it is constantly accelerating upwards. The only explanation is if there is a downward force active. The force RE knows as gravity.

Force would be applied to only a portion of the board.  If a significant amount of the board is not affected by this force, its going to tip over.  It's a simple lever.


The entire earth is pushed upwards, with everything on it. There are no parts which are pushed upwards more, as this would rip the earth apart. Back to my wall on the road. If a car pushes it evenly, will it move with the car or will it slide to one of the sides? If forces are applied evenly it will move forward. If the forces are off balanced, one side receives more force, causing it to tip.

With earth and UA the entire earth with the air and all the things on it, moves upwards. The air beneath the wooden board pushes with equal force as the roofs building, what it would never causes to tip over. That would be impossible.

It seems you are arguing against the equivalence principle, correct me if I am wrong.  The effect of gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable, regardless of the shape of the earth. 

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2013, 08:19:18 PM »
A force applied through a solid has a greater effect than the same force applied through a gas, especially a gas in a generally open system like the air is.  You seem to forget your force diagrams.  If an object is perfectly vertical, it'll balance and stay vertical.  If it is even slightly off vertical and without a stable base, the force would still be applied vertically, but the force as it would appear from the object's perspective would be off vertical, and thus have a vertical and horizontal component, causing it to tip. (this is something like trying to balance a stick).  For the board over the lip of a flat roof, its a matter of leverage.

_________                  ___________                  ___________
^            ^                 ^        ^                         ^     ^
stable                          near leverage point            unstable

The stable diagram will not fall since the force is applied throughout the object (completely on the roof).  The middle diagram will not fall as long as there is at least equal mass on both the force side and the non-force side of the object (object partially hanging off the roof).  The unstable diagram will fall since only a small portion of the object is getting the force applied.

In your car example, if you hit the wall off center, and say this wall were on a swivel and could rotate, it would spin.  Basically the same situation as above, just horizontal instead of vertical.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2013, 02:08:04 AM »
Scepti, I'm not sure you understand what an equation actually is.

I think we had this discussion earlier, and you seemed to agree with me that forces acting on bodies can be quantified by mathematical relationships. This is no different. Just because you don't want to call your theory "gravity" (although it's exactly like gravity in every observable way) doesn't mean it's not subject to repeatability and some sort of pattern.

In your theory, if I weigh a rock, and I measure it to be 1kg in weight, then if I do the same experiment tomorrow it's going to give the same result, right? If I now call the amount by which that rock pushes on the ground 10 newtons, then it stands to reason that a rock 1/10th the weight of the first rock will exert 1 Newton of force and weigh 100g, right?

Well, you've just discovered f = ma...

So why all this equation phobia?
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2013, 02:13:42 AM »
There is no downward force and all objects move up. Only a free object will move down, because we move up. As long as an object is connected to another, it will move upwards with it. Laws of Newton.

There are no sideway forces, right? So a brick wall will stay stationary if you put it on the road.
Let's pretend this line is the wall   |
There is a car traveling in one direction, towards the wall  <--.
 The car hits the wall  | <--- Do the bricks go in the opposite direction -->?  Because the car pivots it? No. Why? Because there are no forces acting upon it in the other direction. Same happens if you have an upward movement ^ and no downward movement. You could move an object so it is completely off balance, as long as it is connected to the rest of the world it will move upwards. Once you push the object away, so it floats free in the air, it can move downwards, because the earth is moving upwards.

This does not make sense and you cannot image a wooden board for example to be all the way out, with only a small part connected to another object.

____     (wooden board)
| (object attached to the world)
----------------------  (earth, constantly moving upwards)

It will fall down, and the falling down cannot occur if there is no downward force. Just like the bricks from the wall will not start flying in the opposite direction if a car hits it. The downward force we witness is gravity and not an upward motion from earth.

I think your confusion arises from the fact that you've assumed all connected objects rise together in the Universal Accelerator model. In that last example with the wooden board, assuming that the object attached to the world is fixed as a clamped joint (ie. it resists moments as well as force) then the wooden board will not fall either under gravity or under UA. Conversely, if the object is fixed to the earth but not to the wood, the wood will fall in both scenarios. The forces acting on the object and the wooden plank are identical under both the UA and gravity scenarios. The difference between the two is the forces acting on the world itself, but these cannot be observed from earth (a convenient arrangement).
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2013, 02:26:25 AM »
Scepti, I'm not sure you understand what an equation actually is.

I think we had this discussion earlier, and you seemed to agree with me that forces acting on bodies can be quantified by mathematical relationships. This is no different. Just because you don't want to call your theory "gravity" (although it's exactly like gravity in every observable way) doesn't mean it's not subject to repeatability and some sort of pattern.

In your theory, if I weigh a rock, and I measure it to be 1kg in weight, then if I do the same experiment tomorrow it's going to give the same result, right? If I now call the amount by which that rock pushes on the ground 10 newtons, then it stands to reason that a rock 1/10th the weight of the first rock will exert 1 Newton of force and weigh 100g, right?

Well, you've just discovered f = ma...

So why all this equation phobia?
I have no problem with equations for weight or mass.
I do not accept equation made up to explain something that does not exist and is simply made up, like gravity.

They're just equations that demonstrate observation, you don't have to call it gravity if you don't like that word... Why are you so adamant about this? You obviously believe in gravity, you just don't seem to want to use that word for some reason.

What name do you give to the phenomenon of objects moving downward when nothing is holding them up? Can't we just use the word gravity, for simplicity's sake?
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2013, 02:41:37 AM »
Scepti, I'm not sure you understand what an equation actually is.

I think we had this discussion earlier, and you seemed to agree with me that forces acting on bodies can be quantified by mathematical relationships. This is no different. Just because you don't want to call your theory "gravity" (although it's exactly like gravity in every observable way) doesn't mean it's not subject to repeatability and some sort of pattern.

In your theory, if I weigh a rock, and I measure it to be 1kg in weight, then if I do the same experiment tomorrow it's going to give the same result, right? If I now call the amount by which that rock pushes on the ground 10 newtons, then it stands to reason that a rock 1/10th the weight of the first rock will exert 1 Newton of force and weigh 100g, right?

Well, you've just discovered f = ma...

So why all this equation phobia?
I have no problem with equations for weight or mass.
I do not accept equation made up to explain something that does not exist and is simply made up, like gravity.

They're just equations that demonstrate observation, you don't have to call it gravity if you don't like that word... Why are you so adamant about this? You obviously believe in gravity, you just don't seem to want to use that word for some reason.

What name do you give to the phenomenon of objects moving downward when nothing is holding them up? Can't we just use the word gravity, for simplicity's sake?
This is where you are getting confused.
There is no gravity, it does not need to exist. We are the floor or our known universe and nothing is required to keep us on that floor, except the requirement of us being heavier than air. That's it.

I'm not confused at all. You are refusing to describe a phenomenon that is ubiquitous in human experience. By the same line of reasoning I could argue that using the world "cold" is wrong because coldness is simply the relative absence of molecular vibration. We should instead all be saying "more hot" and "less hot". Can you see why this would be a profoundly stupid thing to do?

It's fine that we disagree on certain things, I've come to have a certain degree of affection for you and your theories, but at times (and this is one of those times) there is no merit to your line of argument even by your own world view, and that is something I cannot understand. I think you should agree with me on this; not giving it a name is just facetious on your part.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2013, 03:19:44 AM »
The reason why I won't give it a name is because it does not exist. To understand this, you have to not equate it to how we are on this earth.
The fact that most people cannot contemplate anything other than gravity holding us onto the earth, I can understand how hard it must be, when you consider that gravity also accounts for the supposed orbits of planets and what not.

I understand using cold rather than less hot etc and that's fine for things but I do not accept gravity at all. It does not exist as far as I'm concerned.

I fully understand your theory, but you either understand why you are mistaken in refusing to name it and are simply being stubborn, or you're just irrational. This is not an argument about whether or not gravity exists or not, it's about your refusal to use the English language as a tool to describe observable phenomena.

Objects falling by virtue of their weight is an observable phenomenon. This is not a matter of discussion, it's a truism made fact by definition. Your refusal to name it is just a childish attempt to avoid an discussion that will ultimately lead to this very unpleasant observation:

Your theory is gravity.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2013, 05:02:50 AM »
Of course things fall, I see that. I also see things lose balance and tip over. I see a heavier weight on a scale, tip the balance against a slightly lesser weight.
Of course, you can accept the name "gravity" for this if you want to. I simply accept it as weight against atmosphere, as in, heavier than air and that's it.

That's fine, as long as we can agree to call it something so that there's no need to engage in a painful discussion every time we want to reference your idea.

We are a bunch of naive simpletons when all is said and done, because we believe basically anything told to us and accept explanations that go back centuries and centuries.
We go on Newton sitting under a tree and an apple falls on his head, then bang, it's gravity.
We have been duped for long enough and will continue to be duped, unless we all start questioning this baloney.

You're speaking for yourself here, I hope. I for one am neither a naive simpleton nor do I believe much of anything at all, and I certainly don't accept explanations of anything as absolute truth.

Newton described a phenomenon as best as he could, and I concluded that it was most likely to be the correct theory based on the information available to me at the time. Having more recently discovered that his theories are not descriptive of observable and testable phenomena, I have had to change that stance. I will continue to change my stance in light of new and credible information, as I have always done.

The fact that you fail to provide credible information is reflective of your own inability to eloquently put forward a new theory that can describe observable phenomena, rather than some sort of naivety on my part.

Your theory has no backing in observation, it is not testable, and you yourself are unable to explain the mechanism for its action. You simply continue to describe gravity the way Newton would have if he had not invented calculus and didn't observe the stars.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2013, 05:04:06 AM »
A force applied through a solid has a greater effect than the same force applied through a gas, especially a gas in a generally open system like the air is.  You seem to forget your force diagrams.  If an object is perfectly vertical, it'll balance and stay vertical.  If it is even slightly off vertical and without a stable base, the force would still be applied vertically, but the force as it would appear from the object's perspective would be off vertical, and thus have a vertical and horizontal component, causing it to tip. (this is something like trying to balance a stick).  For the board over the lip of a flat roof, its a matter of leverage.

_________                  ___________                  ___________
^            ^                 ^        ^                         ^     ^
stable                          near leverage point            unstable

The stable diagram will not fall since the force is applied throughout the object (completely on the roof).  The middle diagram will not fall as long as there is at least equal mass on both the force side and the non-force side of the object (object partially hanging off the roof).  The unstable diagram will fall since only a small portion of the object is getting the force applied.

In your car example, if you hit the wall off center, and say this wall were on a swivel and could rotate, it would spin.  Basically the same situation as above, just horizontal instead of vertical.

 
Your diagrams are perfect, except you forget to draw a downward force. In a stable force, the force acting down is equal to the force pushing up. If there is only one force applied, as in your model, the model will continue to move upwards. Even in the unstable situation, with just one force, it will continue to move upwards. However, and that is where you think right, the object will start to fall over in an unstable situation. That is because the force acting down is greater than the force acting up. As I said, if one particular force is greater than the other, the object will move. You can hold any object in your hand. Once you move it in any direction the force in that direction is greater, so you move.

The bricks also don't happen to fly in the opposite direction if the car hits it in one direction, or does it? That is the lack of force acting in the other direction. The only reason why the bricks stay behind and the car moves on, is because the bricks are on the road and not on the car. If the bricks are on the car, you could hold them onto there.

I want you to take a piece of paper, this is a very easy experiment, to show you exactly what I just said. Now hold the paper in your open hand nice a balanced. It does not go anywhere, right? Now move the piece of paper from the middle of the hand to where a point it will start to fall. You now have your reference point. Now take the paper again and hold in onto your hand with your thumb at the point it would otherwise fall. Now stand up. Put your hand vertical, so the piece of paper is vertical too. Like in the following picture. Now start to spin around. You can let go of your thumb and you will see the piece of paper will stick to your hand. Now at some point the paper will fly off your hand as if you start to play around with it, this is due to the fact the air that surrounds it does not move with you and it will act as a force on its own. You would have to go a whole lot faster, do you want to overcome that force. I cannot go any faster so I cannot maintain the paper on my hand at all times. The earth, with all the objects and air on top of it, is constantly accelerating upwards and does not have that same problem. Therefore, even if the object is off balanced, with only an upward force the objects will stick to it. Only a free object will appear to fall, because the earth is moving upwards.

You are right, it is not what we observe and that my friend is gravity.


Hello!

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2013, 05:06:54 AM »
Instead of wasting everyone's time explaining statics to you, why don't you just look up the equivalence principle, here's the link, again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2013, 05:21:56 AM »
That's basically the crux of the matter though in science always adding extra to what was firmly believed from early times right up until present day and yet theories are constantly being tweaked , yet it appears that everything works perfectly when the orbits of so called space craft come into the equation.

It starts to get really silly when it comes to the mass of the earth and it's gravitational "pull" and yet a supposed 240,000 mile away ball appears to exert a gravitational "pull" on the oceans, totally overcoming the earths  pull.
It's so stupid, it beggars belief, but there we go, that's what it is and that's what we go with because to think otherwise, a person would be a tin foil hat wearer.

This is why I reject gravity, not just because of falling objects on earth, as that is just a small part of this garbage.

Nothing is firmly believed in science, at least I certainly don't firmly believe in anything.

You call gravity "silly" but you provide no tangible reason for it, and you call it stupid but you don't say what's stupid about it. If you really did understand these theories and they really were stupid, then it follows logically that unless you are also yourself stupid you should be able to point out logical fallacies in the theories.

You have not done so, and since we can assume that if you could have then you would have done so, the only remaining conclusions are that you either do not understand the theories, or you are stupid.

That's derived from your words, not mine.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2013, 05:22:28 AM »
Your gravity is electro magnetism, as far as anything acting upon the earth goes.

Let's leave that one for another day...
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2013, 05:52:21 AM »
I think underneath all of your anger is just someone who doesn't actually know why he doesn't believe in mainstream scientific observations. Take that above post, and I'll remove some of the "angry words":

What I am, is of no consequence.
Gravity is simply a ... word to describe things that happen from a falling object on earth, to what actually keeps our feet stuck to the earth, yet able to move about.
It also applies to movements of planets and ... space craft and is explained by all kinds of [phenomena] to fit it all together.
Space science in the main is made up of so many ... theories that are impossible to fathom, even for scientists themselves, yet they can memorise equations ... and reel them off ....

You've just provided a very sensible summary that most people in those fields would agree with. First you describe the fact that gravity is a name given to observable phenomena. Second you illustrate the fact that our understanding of stellar phenomena is the unison of a range of complex and intertwined theories. You then point out that no single person could ever hope to understand them all, and with that you touch upon the very reason we developed equations; to understand the non-intuitive.

Beneath all the adjectives there really isn't any argument at all in what you are saying. You're just repeating the exact theories that I myself am saying are sensible explanations given the information available to us.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2013, 06:04:40 AM »
Instead of wasting everyone's time explaining statics to you, why don't you just look up the equivalence principle, here's the link, again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

The equivalence principle does not apply in balancing objects. The equivalence principle is that if you were deep in space, in an accelerating rocket at 9,81 per squared second, you would perceive your surroundings as stationary. Then if you would let go of a ball, it will appear as if it is dropping towards the ground below you. This does not involve balancing an object. This is an object that is essentially "free falling". You have no idea that the rocket is actually moving upwards or that gravity is pulling down on the ball.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 06:25:36 AM by Lolflatdisc »
Hello!

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2013, 06:12:22 AM »
I'd be arrogant to say that I am right with everything I say and so would everyone else. We all rely on math for just about everything and that isn't a problem for me, as I understand that to be the case.

It's not the math though, it's how that math is made to fit their theories. Science is deliberately made to be  complicated. Much, much more complicated than a lot of it has to be.

It just looks complicated to you because you don't understand it. If you don't agree, try to find a counter example and I'll show you why you're wrong.

Go outside and look at the sun and then look at the moon and realise the supposed distances , one of which is supposedly 93,000,000 miles away and another, 240,000 miles away, yet somehow they match up in an eclipse.

Just the luck of the draw, or is it made to measure mathematics and equations?
Obviously the round earth answer is just that,but really?

They don't match.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2013, 06:20:34 AM »
If you mean that the earth moves between them, then yes, the earth does that occasionally. But that's beside the point anyway, you're just saying things and adding adjectives like "supposedly" to try to make them sound ridiculous because you have no logical and sensible argument for why that they should not be credible.

Your behavior is proof in itself that you yourself don't really believe in what you are saying. You are angry, paranoid, or a bit of both, but I think you really know that what I'm saying is true, and your theories are not really theories, they are just observations of the obvious that you have claimed for your own.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

Re: Gravity vs upward motion
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2013, 06:31:29 AM »
Jason, are you paying attention?

Instead of wasting everyone's time explaining statics to you, why don't you just look up the equivalence principle, here's the link, again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

The equivalence principle does not apply in balancing objects. The equivalence principle is that if you were deep in space, in an accelerating rocket at 9,81 per squared second, you would perceive your surroundings as stationary. Then if you would let go of a ball, it will appear as if it is dropping towards the ground below you. This does not involve balancing an object. This is an object that is essentially "free falling". You have no idea that the rocket is actually moving upwards or that gravity is pulling down on the ball.

In the ISS, if the astronaut holds an object and does so that it would cause it to be off balance, the object will still not start to fall. Here you see what happens if the astronauts do not touch anything. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Space Station Boost Proves Newton's Laws - All 3 of Them!
They will start to fly to the back of the spacecraft, because there spacecraft is accelerating away from them. But as soon as they grab the space station, they will travel along. I cannot grab a building like they do and not start falling. I would have a hard time hanging.
Hello!