Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not correct.

Einstein's equivalence principle is only correct for an idealized point source of mass.  This is because a true gravitational system has a gradient as gravity weakens the further one gets from the center of the large mass.  This is not dramatic and virtually indistinguishable to a human standing on the surface of the earth, but there is a significant difference between acceleration and gravity even of 6 or so feet when one gets close enough to a black hole.  At some point the gravitational gradient becomes so strong that objects get ripped apart.  And the difference between gravity and acceleration can be detected in very large objects even on earth.  Take a mountain, lets say Mt Everest.  The gravitational force will be different at the base of the mountain than at the top. 

His equivalence principle has always only applied locally. What you are describing is not what's the equivalence principle applied to.

His equivalence principle has always only applied locally. What you are describing is not what's the equivalence principle applied to.

Yes, it is misrepresented as being an explanation that the 'Flat Earth' could just be under acceleration, but that is not true.  There is a big difference between gravity and 'UA' and experimental evidence is not in favor of UA.

Quote from: sokarul on February 10, 2015, 05:11:31 PM

His equivalence principle has always only applied locally. What you are describing is not what's the equivalence principle applied to.

Yes, it is misrepresented as being an explanation that the 'Flat Earth' could just be under acceleration, but that is not true.  There is a big difference between gravity and 'UA' and experimental evidence is not in favor of UA.

I'm pretty sure this comes up entirely too often to still be a topic.
I would suggest reading: http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation.

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

This principle in physics states that in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity.

So why do you accept gravity from stars, but not from earth?

So why do you accept gravity from stars, but not from earth?

Please read my post:

This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.

That's an evasion. Please tell us why gravity is not possible on earth

That's an evasion. Please tell us why gravity is not possible on earth

Gravity doesn't exist. It wasn't an evasion.

Quote from: kman on February 11, 2015, 01:38:34 PM

That's an evasion. Please tell us why gravity is not possible on earth

Gravity doesn't exist. It wasn't an evasion.

So two large masses on the earth will show no attractive force towards each other?  What was Cavnedish measuring when he found such a force?

I am currently reading a scientific paper, that in the course of trying to falsify the equivalence principle, measured the independent acceleration of the Earth and Moon towards the Sun.  Man is that hard to explain on a FE view.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2150

Gravity and gravitation do not mean the same thing. 

Gravity and gravitation do not mean the same thing.

Please enlighten me as to what the difference is Sensai.

Quote from: jroa on February 11, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Gravity and gravitation do not mean the same thing.

Please enlighten me as to what the difference is Sensai.

I did not realize that I needed to teach you English.  Perhaps you could stop by rif.org  to learn a little bit about the English language and then I can work on teaching you the specifics? 

Quote from: jroa on February 11, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Gravity and gravitation do not mean the same thing.

Please enlighten me as to what the difference is Sensai.

Well, the dictionary says this:

grav·i·ta·tion  (grăv′ĭ-tā′shən)
n.

a. The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity.

Looks like jroa needs the English lessons.

Quote from: gpssjim on February 11, 2015, 01:52:24 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 11, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Gravity and gravitation do not mean the same thing.

Please enlighten me as to what the difference is Sensai.

I did not realize that I needed to teach you English.  Perhaps you could stop by rif.org  to learn a little bit about the English language and then I can work on teaching you the specifics?

I did not realize you had to be so rude about it. Anyway, I am not sure how a FEer could rescue their hypothesis in the face of evidence that both the sun and moon accelerate towards the sun. Except of course invoking a conspiracy.

Quote from: gpssjim on February 11, 2015, 01:52:24 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 11, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Gravity and gravitation do not mean the same thing.

Please enlighten me as to what the difference is Sensai.

I did not realize that I needed to teach you English.  Perhaps you could stop by rif.org  to learn a little bit about the English language and then I can work on teaching you the specifics?

Oh, Sensei, you can be so mean.  Why do you hide your light from me?  I am stupid and think that gravity and gravitation stem from the same word and concept.  But you seem to know different.

It appears as though everyone has forgotten that words can have more than one definition.
Here are some more.

grav·i·ta·tion
ˌɡravəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: gravitation
1.
movement, or a tendency to move, toward a center of attractive force, as in the falling of bodies to the earth.
PHYSICS
a force of attraction exerted by each particle of matter in the universe on every other particle.
"the law of universal gravitation"
2.
movement toward or attraction to something.*
"a tentative gravitation toward the prices that we saw before the announcement"
*NOTE: Not necessarily implying anything to do with gravity.

ALSO,

Since you decided to leave out the rest of your definition, here it is in its entirety.

grav·i·ta·tion  (grăv′ĭ-tā′shən)
n.
1. Physics
a. The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity.
b. The act or process of moving under the influence of this attraction.
c. See gravitational interaction.
2. A movement toward a source of attraction*: the gravitation of the middle classes to the suburbs.
*NOTE: Again, not necessarily anything to do with gravity; nor is gravity mentioned.

It appears as though everyone has forgotten that words can have more than one definition.
Here are some more.

Quote

grav·i·ta·tion
ˌɡravəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: gravitation
1.
movement, or a tendency to move, toward a center of attractive force, as in the falling of bodies to the earth.
PHYSICS
a force of attraction exerted by each particle of matter in the universe on every other particle.
"the law of universal gravitation"
2.
movement toward or attraction to something.*
"a tentative gravitation toward the prices that we saw before the announcement"
*NOTE: Not necessarily implying anything to do with gravity.

ALSO,

Since you decided to leave out the rest of your definition, here it is in its entirety.

Quote

grav·i·ta·tion  (grăv′ĭ-tā′shən)
n.
1. Physics
a. The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity.
b. The act or process of moving under the influence of this attraction.
c. See gravitational interaction.
2. A movement toward a source of attraction*: the gravitation of the middle classes to the suburbs.
*NOTE: Again, not necessarily anything to do with gravity; nor is gravity mentioned.

Yes, but the second meaning is directly derived from the word Gravity and the observation of the effects of gravity.

Gravity is the cause, gravitation is the effect.

Quote from: kman on February 11, 2015, 01:38:34 PM

That's an evasion. Please tell us why gravity is not possible on earth

Gravity doesn't exist. It wasn't an evasion.

This "celestial gravity" you talk about displays the same qualities and traits of the gravity that we know of. Why is this force not possible on earth?

Why do you confuse the terms "gravity" and "gravitation"? 

Why do you confuse the terms "gravity" and "gravitation"?

we are all now smarter because you posted this.

Yes, but the second meaning is directly derived from the word Gravity and the observation of the effects of gravity.

Are you sure? 5 minutes of research seems to be pointing in the direction of the opposite.
From wikipedia "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation"

It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687.

Take note of the date.
Here is the interesting bit, seemingly indicating that the word gravity is actually derived from the word gravitation.

gravitate (v.)
1640s (Take note of this as the time of the first usage of the word "gravitate".), "exert weight, move downward," from Modern Latin gravitatus, past participle of gravitare "gravitate," from Latin gravitas "heaviness, weight" (see gravity). Meaning "To be affected by gravity" is from 1690s. Figurative use from 1670s. Related: Gravitated; gravitating. The classical Latin verb was gravare "to make heavy, burden, oppress, aggravate."

Sir Isaac Newton was born on January 4, 1643.
Surely you're not insinuating that Newton developed his theory before he was but 10 years old.
Or are you?

This is fascinating stuff th3rm0m3t3r0m, really. 

In modern physics there is no confusion: gravity and gravitation mean the same thing.

Now stop trying to bore everyone to death with your semantic diversions.

This is fascinating stuff th3rm0m3t3r0m, really. 

In modern physics there is no confusion: gravity and gravitation mean the same thing.

Now stop trying to bore everyone to death with your semantic diversions.

I was responding to Mainframes:

Yes, but the second meaning is directly derived from the word Gravity and the observation of the effects of gravity.

And Jim, if the word gravity comes from the word gravitate/gravitation, its original meaning has nothing to do with gravity.
Newton simply used the word because it meant something along the lines of what he had thought he had observed.
I hate the semantic arguments as well. Can one of you try to do something other than make one?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 13, 2015, 02:46:10 AM

This is fascinating stuff th3rm0m3t3r0m, really. 

In modern physics there is no confusion: gravity and gravitation mean the same thing.

Now stop trying to bore everyone to death with your semantic diversions.

I was responding to Mainframes:

Quote from: Mainframes on February 12, 2015, 04:30:29 AM

Yes, but the second meaning is directly derived from the word Gravity and the observation of the effects of gravity.

And Jim, if the word gravity comes from the word gravitate/gravitation, its original meaning has nothing to do with gravity.
Newton simply used the word because it meant something along the lines of what he had thought he had observed.
I hate the semantic arguments as well. Can one of you try to do something other than make one?

Semantics! The last great bastion of FE authority!

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 13, 2015, 02:46:10 AM

This is fascinating stuff th3rm0m3t3r0m, really. 

In modern physics there is no confusion: gravity and gravitation mean the same thing.

Now stop trying to bore everyone to death with your semantic diversions.

I was responding to Mainframes:

Quote from: Mainframes on February 12, 2015, 04:30:29 AM

Yes, but the second meaning is directly derived from the word Gravity and the observation of the effects of gravity.

And Jim, if the word gravity comes from the word gravitate/gravitation, its original meaning has nothing to do with gravity.
Newton simply used the word because it meant something along the lines of what he had thought he had observed.
I hate the semantic arguments as well. Can one of you try to do something other than make one?

I posted a scientific paper measuring the free fall acceleration of the moon and the Earth towards the sun and they completely agree with GR. Is there a FE model that can adequately explain this phenomena?  Hopefully to the degree of accuracy present in the paper?

Quote from: gpssjim on February 10, 2015, 05:15:13 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 10, 2015, 05:11:31 PM

His equivalence principle has always only applied locally. What you are describing is not what's the equivalence principle applied to.

Yes, it is misrepresented as being an explanation that the 'Flat Earth' could just be under acceleration, but that is not true.  There is a big difference between gravity and 'UA' and experimental evidence is not in favor of UA.

I'm pretty sure this comes up entirely too often to still be a topic.
I would suggest reading: http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation.

Quote

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Quote

This principle in physics states that in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity.

You're supposed to have read this:

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

So let's assume for one moment, as a thought experiment, that this premise is true, and that there is an attraction between some objects and not others - a bit like how a magnet will attract a piece of iron but a piece of iron will not attract another piece of iron.
There are some other things which can be defined as parameters under FET: the distance between the celestial bodies and the earth does not change. This means if UA is true, the sun and moon and stars must be accelerating upwards at the same rate as the earth. So far, none of this has conflicted with FET.
But wait...
If UA is applying an equal force of acceleration on the earth as it is on the moon/sun/whatever, then that means the net acceleration of the earth relative to the celestial bodies is zero.
Still no conflict with FET. But keep waiting...
The FE'ers fully accept the laws of action and reaction, because they accept that guns work, cars drive along roads, and if you punch sceptimatic hard in the face you feel a force on your hand too.
Which means that with no net acceleration between the celestial bodies and the earth, any pull on an earthly object by celestial gravitation will result in an equivalent pull on the celestial body, and the celestial body will be pulled ever closer to the earth until it hits it.
This does not happen.

Your "explanation" in the wiki is disproved - not by invoking round earth physics which you say is wrong, but entirely by using laws of physics accepted by FE'ers. Even in your own universe, your theory doesn't work. So stop quoting it.