If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion

What was out of context?  Read the entire address, if you would like, and you will plainly see that Einstein was trying to bridge Relativity with Aether theory.

Eric Dubay's theory is plain stupid. If it is like that, why doesn't the entire earth fall with us? Why doesn't every celestial body come crashing down? WHY? How come the earth just "happens" to be perfectly perpendicular to this force of density? If density is all that matters, why don't denser instead of more massive things weigh more? Does he not know how buoyancy works?

The atmospheric pressure thing is also fatally wrong. Its supporters don't realize that atmospheric pressure doesn't only push you downwards, but to all directions. It would simply just cancel out. It also doesn't explain why things fall in vacuum.

UA is, from our viewpoint, exactly the same as gravity, but it doesn't explain the Cavendish experiment, variations in gravitational pull, and it also doesn't have the type of universality gravity has.

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2015, 06:58:33 AM

What was out of context?  Read the entire address, if you would like, and you will plainly see that Einstein was trying to bridge Relativity with Aether theory.

He wasn't trying to bridge anything. He was simply saying that the hypothesis of an aether would be useful for explaining things that, at the time, weren't able to be explained, and proposed the idea of an aether combined with the theory of general relativity. But what's more interesting is this: "The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events." Does that seem to you like what you have in your mind as "aether"? The "aether" most flat earthers refer to does have kinematical and mechanical qualities. Also, I've read that in the period of 1919-1920, he made two attempts to modify general relativity, and were later found to be wrong, and he admitted it. I'm pretty sure this was one of them. It wouldn't be the first time he was wrong. He considered his proposition of a "cosmological constant" his greatest blunder. Oh yeah. And there are quotes like this: "The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.".

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2015, 03:42:30 PM

Eric Dubay's theory is plain stupid. If it is like that, why doesn't the entire earth fall with us? Why doesn't every celestial body come crashing down? WHY? How come the earth just "happens" to be perfectly perpendicular to this force of density? If density is all that matters, why don't denser instead of more massive things weigh more? Does he not know how buoyancy works?

The atmospheric pressure thing is also fatally wrong. Its supporters don't realize that atmospheric pressure doesn't only push you downwards, but to all directions. It would simply just cancel out. It also doesn't explain why things fall in vacuum.

UA is, from our viewpoint, exactly the same as gravity, but it doesn't explain the Cavendish experiment, variations in gravitational pull, and it also doesn't have the type of universality gravity has.

I am not defending those models: my point is simply that there are alternatives. Just because you may pose a (possibly) unanswered question, does not mean it is unanaswerable.

UA could happily coexist with some theory of gravity: I have said this several times before. Just because the Earth is accelerating does not mean mass does nto exert a pull: this would allow for stellar gravitation, the Cavendish experiment answering the variations in gravity.

The Cavendish experiment was to measure the value of the gravitational constant, as well as proving gravity, so gravity can't be much weaker than what has been measured by it, and, if it isn't much weaker, well, we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. It would also be unable to explain the orbits of the moons, the planets, etc. I fail to see how a coexistence of UA with gravity would do anything.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 08:15:48 AM

The Cavendish experiment was to measure the value of the gravitational constant, as well as proving gravity, so gravity can't be much weaker than what has been measured by it, and, if it isn't much weaker, well, we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. It would also be unable to explain the orbits of the moons, the planets, etc. I fail to see how a coexistence of UA with gravity would do anything.

Gravity could well be weaker: there could be more at play on Earth than in vacuum, for example. Science is really so clear cut as you propose.
Gravity also only works to explain orbits on a RE: there are no such orbits on FE. And it only explains orbits by assumption: assuming a RE, it can be blamed.

I have explains how the coexistence of UA and gravity helps several times. Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts. The stars would exert a minor gravitational pull on the Earth, thus causing (for example) higher altitudes to have less measurable gravity.

You have questions, yes: that does not make them unanaswerable. Personally I do not favor UA for the energy required for constant acceleration. However, the fact you can ask a lot of questions about how the model works means nothing: if we rewound a few centuries, you wouldn't be able to explain the origin, movements or position of the planets, nor would you be able to say why we stay on the Earth's surface. RE theory has had more time to develop, that's all.

There are many reasons why that wouldn't work, and many inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force. You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 09:15:01 AM

There are many reasons why that wouldn't work, and many inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force. You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.

There are many reasons why that wouldn't work without refinement, and many possible inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force subject to certain variables such as geographical location, kinds of materials, strength of surrounding gravitational field... You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model assuming that the variables that it is near-impossible to remove have no effect, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 09:15:01 AM

There are many reasons why that wouldn't work without refinement, and many possible inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force subject to certain variables such as geographical location, kinds of materials, strength of surrounding gravitational field... You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model assuming that the variables that it is near-impossible to remove have no effect, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.

Bold added to make your post scientific. This is a crucial point: science does not deal in absolutes, and the fact so many people act as though it does is downright dangerous. Every experiment is based on trying to remove as many variables as possible; and even then it fails.

For example, there is some evidence that gravity could be 'chained', that bodies in a line might exert more force than would be expected: similar to what we'd expect if we imagined space literally curving. This is the Allais effect: certainly, there are many interpretations of the repeated experiments, and it's also possible that the effect itself is just a result of imperfect instrumentation. This is the point: many variables, beyond those under study, will always be involved.

Apologies for the duplicate, it posted without me meaning to.

If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 09:33:48 AM

If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion

Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity. 

Not all flat earthers believe in the UA nonsense.  Most of the UA theory is shillery.

No, the Cavendish experiment measures the force of gravity between heavy balls. It's got nothing to do with the location,

and, in the most accurate experiments, all the other variables you mentioned have been accounted for. It's not impossible to remove the variables. It's relatively easy. All you have to do is make sure that it is reasonably far away from any changing source of gravity. Cavendish wasn't even in the room where the apparatus was. He observed it using a telescope, so that his own mass won't affect it in the slightest.

There are many inconsistencies with your model, which I'm not going to address right now, and the amount of "refinement" that would be needed is... Well... Let's just say that you would need something that is completely different.

You also have to take into account the Occam's razor. I mean, if you're going to substitute every known law of the universe for something completely different, why don't you just say that the earth is flat, but even if you go to space and take a photo of its curvature, it's not proof that it's round, because there is some sort of law that makes it appear like it's round? Why not just say that it's a law that the earth must be flat?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 10:18:32 AM

No, the Cavendish experiment measures the force of gravity between heavy balls. It's got nothing to do with the location,

Correct. This does not mean location was not a variable.

Quote

and, in the most accurate experiments, all the other variables you mentioned have been accounted for. It's not impossible to remove the variables. It's relatively easy. All you have to do is make sure that it is reasonably far away from any changing source of gravity. Cavendish wasn't even in the room where the apparatus was. He observed it using a telescope, so that his own mass won't affect it in the slightest.

Did he perform it in intergalactic space, away from the gravitational field of the Earth?
Again, I am not saying UA or the weak-gravity etc model are accurate: I'm saying it is premature to reject them utterly, beyond all hope of refinement, when responses may always be found.

Quote

There are many inconsistencies with your model, which I'm not going to address right now, and the amount of "refinement" that would be needed is... Well... Let's just say that you would need something that is completely different.

It's not my model. My model is still in development; I am simply examining all possibilities. I do not favor UA in the slightest, as I have said numerous times.
A claim is not fact. You do not know evry possible refinement, you can not simply state that there is no reasonable application of it.

Quote

You also have to take into account the Occam's razor. I mean, if you're going to substitute every known law of the universe for something completely different, why don't you just say that the earth is flat, but even if you go to space and take a photo of its curvature, it's not proof that it's round, because there is some sort of law that makes it appear like it's round? Why not just say that it's a law that the earth must be flat?

Aside from your rather absurdly extreme case, there is a difference between replacing and substituting. If I came up with a model which replaced every law of the universe in a way that was fully supported by observations, and which explained everything, and required one less assumption, this would be preferred by Occam's Razor.
The key point of Occam's Razor is 'all else being equal'. You don't start applying it from the status quo: of course such a model would depart greatly from what's currently accepted. That doesn't mean there is nothing else that could explain both modern and ancient observations and results: to make such a claim is unscientific. Science fully allows for old theories to be replaced.

I have absolutely no idea why you think location would be a variable. There is no reason to perform it in gravity free space, because the only attraction in the experiment that matters is the one from the weights. The earth's gravitational field has nothing to do with it, because we all know it pulls us downwards, and not sidewards. The Cavendish experiment measures the sidewards force.

And you are right. If you managed to create such a model, it would be preferred. But I find it extremely unlikely, to the point that it is practically impossible.

Oh, and this is my favorite quote.

Quote

Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 03:58:00 PM

I have absolutely no idea why you think location would be a variable. There is no reason to perform it in gravity free space, because the only attraction in the experiment that matters is the one from the weights. The earth's gravitational field has nothing to do with it, because we all know it pulls us downwards, and not sidewards. The Cavendish experiment measures the sidewards force.

That's what the current model suggests, yes: it may not be accurate. Perhaps sources of gravity interfere with one another: after all, they bend space. If those bends overlap, it seems likely there could be some behavior not directly expected. (Magnetic fields are a good analogy: two magnets close by alter the fields between them).

Quote

And you are right. If you managed to create such a model, it would be preferred. But I find it extremely unlikely, to the point that it is practically impossible.

What is the basis upon which you make this claim? It's fine if you favor the current model, but what is impossible is to claim you can judge every possible alternative.

It is only scientific to oppose the existing model. If it can be improved upon, so much the better.

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 05, 2015, 12:47:57 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 09:33:48 AM

If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion

Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity. 

Not all flat earthers believe in the UA nonsense.  Most of the UA theory is shillery.

The UA nonsense has the least gaping holes of all the other flat earther theories trying to explain gravity.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 01:16:19 PM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 05, 2015, 12:47:57 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 09:33:48 AM

If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion

Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity. 

Not all flat earthers believe in the UA nonsense.  Most of the UA theory is shillery.

The UA nonsense has the least gaping holes of all the other flat earther theories trying to explain gravity.

Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity. 




Note to honest, honorable and intelligent folks:  Pay VERY close attention to how many shills talk about UA nonsense and other things upon which flat earth theory does not depend.  Only the shills feed nonsense discussions.

The current model does suggest that those bends overlap, and it's the reason why gravity always points to the center of mass. If you examine the Cavendish experiment, you would see that local gravitational influence is of no importance. With the room being significantly large, the distance between the apparatus and any other gravitational influence is so large that... Well... It doesn't even matter in the slightest. If you're going to claim that gravity is strong enough for those influences to matter, then it would be STRONGER than what is supported by the current model, and we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. Besides, the experiment is tested both clockwise AND counterclockwise.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 03:18:59 AM

The current model does suggest that those bends overlap, and it's the reason why gravity always points to the center of mass. If you examine the Cavendish experiment, you would see that local gravitational influence is of no importance. With the room being significantly large, the distance between the apparatus and any other gravitational influence is so large that... Well... It doesn't even matter in the slightest. If you're going to claim that gravity is strong enough for those influences to matter, then it would be STRONGER than what is supported by the current model, and we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. Besides, the experiment is tested both clockwise AND counterclockwise.

I meant overlap in the sense that magnetic fields overlap: interference.
None of that seems to even begin to address my contention that the gravitational field of the Earth would further encourage the gravitational fields of the balls observed. Clockwise or counter-clockwise, it would hold. After all, as I have had to say several times, the experiment took place well within the Earth's gravitational field: the distance between the balls and the Earth is most definitely not too large.

To be honest, I'm starting to piece together more of a theory, and UA has no part of it.

You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.

Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 03:40:42 PM

You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.

Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.

The pull of the Earth is downwards, but that still wouldn't preclude interference. Resorting to the magnet example again, if you line two magnets up vertically, you'll see even some horizontal lines are affected. Besides, comparatively little of the gravity exerted by the balls would be strictly horizontal.
Gravity that repels is actually an existing theoretical concept, though I will concede it hasn't been observed.

Currently I'm theorizing that there is a connection between the fundamental forces, so there could well be a gravitational field analogous to the magnetic field, even if only one gravitational 'pole' is observed. Still, this is speculation.
Don't forget that we wouldn't be working on an exact RE model. Perhaps gravity is a dipole and the repulsive gravity is what causes UA: if nothing else, it's neat. Just handwave everything on the Earth's surface as being primarily attractive and you've got a system that's coherent, at first glance.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 06, 2015, 03:56:17 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 03:40:42 PM

You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.

Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.

The pull of the Earth is downwards, but that still wouldn't preclude interference. Resorting to the magnet example again, if you line two magnets up vertically, you'll see even some horizontal lines are affected. Besides, comparatively little of the gravity exerted by the balls would be strictly horizontal.
Gravity that repels is actually an existing theoretical concept, though I will concede it hasn't been observed.

Currently I'm theorizing that there is a connection between the fundamental forces, so there could well be a gravitational field analogous to the magnetic field, even if only one gravitational 'pole' is observed. Still, this is speculation.
Don't forget that we wouldn't be working on an exact RE model. Perhaps gravity is a dipole and the repulsive gravity is what causes UA: if nothing else, it's neat. Just handwave everything on the Earth's surface as being primarily attractive and you've got a system that's coherent, at first glance.

First of all, as I have explained, the only reason why what you say happens with magnets us because they are dipoles. I will explain how it happens with a diagram later.

I also feel like I'm not making myself understood when I'm explaining to you my points on gravity. I will explain them to you with a diagram, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.

First of all, as I have explained, the only reason why what you say happens with magnets us because they are dipoles. I will explain how it happens with a diagram later.

I also feel like I'm not making myself understood when I'm explaining to you my points on gravity. I will explain them to you with a diagram, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 05:00:57 PM

Quote from: FEScientist on September 06, 2015, 03:56:17 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 03:40:42 PM

You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.

Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.

The pull of the Earth is downwards, but that still wouldn't preclude interference. Resorting to the magnet example again, if you line two magnets up vertically, you'll see even some horizontal lines are affected. Besides, comparatively little of the gravity exerted by the balls would be strictly horizontal.
Gravity that repels is actually an existing theoretical concept, though I will concede it hasn't been observed.

Currently I'm theorizing that there is a connection between the fundamental forces, so there could well be a gravitational field analogous to the magnetic field, even if only one gravitational 'pole' is observed. Still, this is speculation.
Don't forget that we wouldn't be working on an exact RE model. Perhaps gravity is a dipole and the repulsive gravity is what causes UA: if nothing else, it's neat. Just handwave everything on the Earth's surface as being primarily attractive and you've got a system that's coherent, at first glance.

First of all, as I have explained, the only reason why what you say happens with magnets us because they are dipoles. I will explain how it happens with a diagram later.

I also feel like I'm not making myself understood when I'm explaining to you my points on gravity. I will explain them to you with a diagram, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.

Why do you insist that the Earth is not a dipole?  Because it is flat?