My theory on the theory of gravity

http://imageshack.com/a/img903/2008/VkcaJa.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img910/3646/5rkISf.jpg

Even weather balloons will only fly a short distance, at times doubling back to the starting point. It will do this despite the earth rotating at 1,000 MPH, the balloon reaching 173,000 FT, and the entire galaxy accelerating upwards at 45,000 MPH. Gravity is not the reason behind things falling towards earth. It is a separation just like oil and water. Of course you can overcome this with things such as thrust and propulsion. 

Very Good! You showed the formula for general gravitation. Now what is the formula for the centrifugal force experienced by an object at the equator?

http://i.imgur.com/YlvwLZe.png

In case you didn't know how to apply centrifugal force equation to earth.

Try throwing a ball strait up in a moving car.  According to your logic it should fly back and real through the back window, but in reality it just lands back in your hand as if you were stationary.  Same applies to the Earth, objects (like balloons and balls) in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside net force.

As for your idea of how things fall, consider the following.  Pick up a rock and bond it in front of you, then release it.  It starts accelerating down at 9.71 m/s².  In order to accelerate, by definition a force must be present.  What force is it?  Also, why does it accelerate in that specific direction instead of the infinity of other possibilities?  Why is it such a specific rate of acceleration?  Why does it stop working when you are in a free falling plane yet still work in a vacuum chamber?  Why does it's strength vary slightly (but measurably) depending on your geographical location and altitude?  Why have countless experiments concluded that all objects cause things to accelerate towards them in accordance to the gravity equations?  How could an allegedly incorrect theory predict with precision the motion of celestial objects?  There are just too many holes and questions here.

As for your idea of how things fall, consider the following.  Pick up a rock and bond it in front of you, then release it.  It starts accelerating down at 9.71 m/s².  In order to accelerate, by definition a force must be present.

Wha?!?  Exactly what force would that be?

You can replace the Earth in that picture with an electron, replace "mass" with "charge", and replace "gravity" with "electric force", maybe then you'll realise how stupid you sound. We've known for quite a while that masses attract, and can determine the strength of this force experimentally. Arguing gravity doesn't exist, you may as well argue electromagnetism doesn't exist too, since both forces are fundamental and can be considered analogues (force carriers of graviton/photon, interaction based around mass/charge).

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2016, 10:02:17 AM

As for your idea of how things fall, consider the following.  Pick up a rock and bond it in front of you, then release it.  It starts accelerating down at 9.71 m/s².  In order to accelerate, by definition a force must be present.

Wha?!?  Exactly what force would that be?

I'm saying that it's gravity.  What do you think it is?

Well, it certainly is not a force.  'Gravity' as a force does not exist.

Well, it certainly is not a force.  'Gravity' as a force does not exist.

Prove it

Sure.  Perform this experiment:

Download an accelerometer app on your phone.
Stand on a chair.
Start said app.
Note acceleration reading as you stand on the chair.
Step off chair.
Note acceleration reading as you are in free fall.
Note acceleration reading as you stand on the Earth.

Let me know what your results are.

Common experiments for investigating nature of gravity involve using large masses and sensitive equipment to measure small accelerations between objects. Fact is, g changes depending on your altitude and location on earth, this is known, showing a relationship between the force, distance and mass. Obvious shit is obvious, I guess not to the deranged tho.

Well, it certainly is not a force.  'Gravity' as a force does not exist.

True, but for all intents and purposes I am treating it as one.

So I suppose you are an advocate of universal acceleration?  If so then what witchcraft causes this unproven force to accelerate everything at the same rate except for things on the surface of Earth?  You call gravity magical, yet the amount of math behind the theory is staggering.  I assume your hypothesis is somehow better and can be used to make predictions at least we well as gravity.  If that's not the case then that's a double standard.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 02, 2016, 10:46:37 AM

Well, it certainly is not a force.  'Gravity' as a force does not exist.

True, but for all intents and purposes I am treating it as one.

When you say gravity is not a force, do you mean that it is more accurately described by the curvature of space-time?

True, but for all intents and purposes I am treating it as one.

You like fantasy forces, huh?

So I suppose you are an advocate of universal acceleration?  If so then what witchcraft causes this unproven force to accelerate everything at the same rate except for things on the surface of Earth?

Dark Energy is theorized to be the energy source for the accelerating FE.

  You call gravity magical, yet the amount of math behind the theory is staggering.

That doesn't make it any less magical.  Or fake.

When you say gravity is not a force, do you mean that it is more accurately described by the curvature of space-time?

Yeah.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 02, 2016, 01:20:38 PM

True, but for all intents and purposes I am treating it as one.

You like fantasy forces, huh?

No.  The Newtonian equations treat gravity as a force, but the relativistic equations say that it's space-time curvature.  Weather gravity should be considered a fundamental force or an apparent force is debated.  Right now, gravity is commonly referred to as a force.  In a mathematical sense both interpretations produce identical results but treating it as a force makes the calculations easier, and that's why I'm treating it as a force yet agreeing that it's not a force.

Why is it that you seem to know so so much about physics, but when you start talking about something flat Earth related your brain just falls out of your head and you forget the basics?  I know you know about relativity, so why do you seem to know nothing about relativistic gravity?

Quote

So I suppose you are an advocate of universal acceleration?  If so then what witchcraft causes this unproven force to accelerate everything at the same rate except for things on the surface of Earth?

Dark Energy is theorized to be the energy source for the accelerating FE.

First of all, you are misusing the word "theory".

Also, if dark energy were the cause then it would accelerate everything including us uniformly such that it would be indistinguishable from being stationary.  Why would the Earth and everything in the sky accelerate while everything on the surface of Earth has to be pushed by the Earth?  Also, why would us pushing back on the Earth not make it accelerate slower then everything else?

It should also be noted that in order to declare an accelerating object as stationary, space-time must be allowed to bend.  The idea that even accelerating objects can be a reference frame was derived from and depends on the existence of gravity.  For UA to exist without gravity is paradoxical.

Quote

  You call gravity magical, yet the amount of math behind the theory is staggering.

That doesn't make it any less magical.  Or fake.

Why is it that you seem to know so so much about physics, but when you start talking about something flat Earth related your brain just falls out of your head and you forget the basics?  I know you know about relativity, so why do you seem to know nothing about relativistic gravity?

Hmm, seems like I know bunches about General Relativity.  Would you care to show me otherwise (or specifically, were my 'brain just falls out of my head and I forgot the basics')?

Also, if dark energy were the cause then it would accelerate everything including us uniformly such that it would be indistinguishable from being stationary.

Right, and that obviously doesn't happen.  So obviously the FE blocks the UA/DE from interacting with stuff on the top of the FE.

It should also be noted that in order to declare an accelerating object as stationary, space-time must be allowed to bend.  The idea that even accelerating objects can be a reference frame was derived from and depends on the existence of gravity.  For UA to exist without gravity is paradoxical.

What?

Also, if dark energy were the cause then it would accelerate everything including us uniformly such that it would be indistinguishable from being stationary.  Why would the Earth and everything in the sky accelerate while everything on the surface of Earth has to be pushed by the Earth?  Also, why would us pushing back on the Earth not make it accelerate slower then everything else?

Another issue with some upward force exerted on the Earth. http://i.imgur.com/6OfSCro.png
Sorry for my poor mspaint skills. I'm not sure if this is what flat earthers are proposing the force looks like, but this would be the most feasible. More feasible than the Earth just accelerating itself upwards.

Well, it certainly is not a force.  'Gravity' as a force does not exist.

That depends on whether you subscribe to the standard Quantum Mechanics/Particle Physics model, or the General Relativity/Curved Spacetime model, which are irreconcilable theories of modern physics. There is currently no consensus in physics research as both models work better than each other in certain circumstances. If you want to claim you're right, feel free to post a disproof of the QM/PP model and we'll hand you your Nobel Prize.
But since your quote puts you in the GR camp, sadly that means you have to accept that earth's gravity cannot be caused by upward acceleration (because the field is inhomogenous) which then leads to the conclusion that the earth cannot be flat.
Like all FE'ers, you pick and choose pieces of theories to back up whatever you're using to counter the latest RE post, while hoping nobody notices supporting a proper theory blasts holes in another part of FE.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 02, 2016, 10:46:37 AM

Well, it certainly is not a force.  'Gravity' as a force does not exist.

True, but for all intents and purposes I am treating it as one.

So that's how you say it. I always thought it was "for all intensive purposes". Sorry for the random thought. Carry on.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 02, 2016, 01:20:38 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 02, 2016, 10:46:37 AM

Well, it certainly is not a force.  'Gravity' as a force does not exist.

True, but for all intents and purposes I am treating it as one.

So that's how you say it. I always thought it was "for all intensive purposes". Sorry for the random thought. Carry on.

I used to think that too, since I never saw it in writing until I was about 15. Never used to think the Earth was flat tho.

Hmm, seems like I know bunches about General Relativity.  Would you care to show me otherwise (or specifically, were my 'brain just falls out of my head and I forgot the basics')?

First of all, you know almost nothing about gravity yet you dismiss it as magical.  You also clearly have no idea what the equivelence principal is as demonstrated by your second post on this thread.  According to relativity, saying that we are stationary and there is gravity is just as accurite as saying that we are accelerating and there is no gravity.  Gravity bends space, and since space is bearing down on us then we are by definition accelerating.  You seem to selectively understand relativity, getting only the parts of it that don't make flat Earth impossible.

To test your knowlage of relativity, I want you to tell me what would happen in the following scenario.  For this thought experiment, we will assume that Earth is round.  Immagine you are on Earth, and another person is in a space station orbiting close to a black hole 1,000 light years away.  According to relativity, time gets slower as the gravity field you are in gets stronger.  Let's say the person in the station is orbiting at just the right altitude such that one year for them is 1,000 years for you.  Now let's say you send a message to the station, for you it will take 1,000 years for the message to reach it's destination.  On the station though, 1,000 years = 1 year.  This means that the 1,000 years it took for the message to arive is just one year for our astronaut, yet from the astronauts point of view the Earth is still 1,000 light years away.  This means that the light went 1,000 light years in one year, how is this possible if the speed of light is constant?  If the person on the station measured the speed of the incoming signal then what would the result be?

Quote

Also, if dark energy were the cause then it would accelerate everything including us uniformly such that it would be indistinguishable from being stationary.

Right, and that obviously doesn't happen.  So obviously the FE blocks the UA/DE from interacting with stuff on the top of the FE.

But aren't celestial objects above the flat Earth according to FET?  If the Earth is blocking it then why is it hitting them and what forces are causing them to move along their paths?  Your explenation makes absolutely no sense.  You act as if gravity is a terible explenation that only an idiot would believe, yet you cannot provide an explenation that makes the slightest bit of sense and does not conflict with countless observations.

Quote

It should also be noted that in order to declare an accelerating object as stationary, space-time must be allowed to bend.  The idea that even accelerating objects can be a reference frame was derived from and depends on the existence of gravity.  For UA to exist without gravity is paradoxical.

What?

I will elaborate a bit.

According to relativity, declaring the ground is stationary is just as accurite as any other reference frame, and this is the case in both models.  The math works out perfectly, you just have to factor in a force that accelerates everything down at a uniform rate.  This makes anything in free fall move in a parabolic trajectory as well as many other implications which I am sure you are very familear with.  If you then declare that Earth is accelerating up at 9.81 m/s² (which is also just as accurite as any other reference frame and works with both models), then the math chenges a bit.  Things in free fall move in a strait line as well as many other implications, but if you do the math then the result is always the same as it is if you declare the ground stationary.

So what force could cause all objects to accelerate down at a constant rate?  Gravity.  There still is a probelem though, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so what is the equal and opposite reaction for gravity?  The only way this could be resolved is if everything had a gravitational pull with a strength proportional to mass.  Mathematically, that's the only way to not break Newton's laws.

So really it comes down to this.  Either Newton is right and Einstein is wrong, Einstein is right and Newton is wrong, or they are both right and gravity is real.

First of all, you know almost nothing about gravity yet you dismiss it as magical.

You forgot to back this up.

You also clearly have no idea what the equivelence principal is as demonstrated by your second post on this thread.  According to relativity, saying that we are stationary and there is gravity is just as accurite as saying that we are accelerating and there is no gravity. 

Where did I say otherwise?

Gravity bends space, and since space is bearing down on us then we are by definition accelerating.

Space is bearing down on you?  What?!?

To test your knowlage of relativity, I want you to tell me what would happen in the following scenario.  For this thought experiment, we will assume that Earth is round.  Immagine you are on Earth, and another person is in a space station orbiting close to a black hole 1,000 light years away.  According to relativity, time gets slower as the gravity field you are in gets stronger.  Let's say the person in the station is orbiting at just the right altitude such that one year for them is 1,000 years for you.  Now let's say you send a message to the station, for you it will take 1,000 years for the message to reach it's destination.  On the station though, 1,000 years = 1 year.  This means that the 1,000 years it took for the message to arive is just one year for our astronaut, yet from the astronauts point of view the Earth is still 1,000 light years away.  This means that the light went 1,000 light years in one year, how is this possible if the speed of light is constant?  If the person on the station measured the speed of the incoming signal then what would the result be?

The speed of light is invariant.

You act as if gravity is a terible explenation that only an idiot would believe,

I didn't say that.  I said gravity does not exist as a force.

According to relativity, declaring the ground is stationary is just as accurite as any other reference frame, and this is the case in both models.  The math works out perfectly, you just have to factor in a force that accelerates everything down at a uniform rate.  This makes anything in free fall move in a parabolic trajectory as well as many other implications which I am sure you are very familear with.  If you then declare that Earth is accelerating up at 9.81 m/s² (which is also just as accurite as any other reference frame and works with both models), then the math chenges a bit.  Things in free fall move in a strait line as well as many other implications, but if you do the math then the result is always the same as it is if you declare the ground stationary.

Sorry, but this still makes no sense.

So what force could cause all objects to accelerate down at a constant rate?  Gravity.

Except gravity does not exist as a force.  So...I don't know what you are trying to say.

So really it comes down to this. Either Newton is right and Einstein is wrong, Einstein is right and Newton is wrong, or they are both right and gravity is real. a fictitious force.

Fixed it for you.

TheEngineer, you know that gravity can both be real AND a fictitious force, right?
1. NO, I am not saying that gravity is a real force, I am saying gravity is real.
2. NO, I am not saying the WORD gravity, I obviously mean the phenomenon of gravitation, which is the same as gravity.

No.

No.

Baseless assertion.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 03, 2016, 03:41:50 PM

First of all, you know almost nothing about gravity yet you dismiss it as magical.

You forgot to back this up.

Space is bearing down on you?  What?!?

Sorry, but this still makes no sense.

You backed it up for yourself, dear.

Claim to understand general relativity, yet are confused when somebody explains it to you. Claim that dark energy is theorised as a force used to accelerate a flat Earth, yet shows no evidence of how this flat energy is supposed to accelerate the flat earth, or even of anyone who has theorised this and conducted experiments to test this "theory". Claims gravity does not exist as a force, yet does not provide any proof or evidence that the Newtonian interpretation of gravity as a force is incorrect/inaccurate at a planetary scale. Does nothing to explain why acceleration experienced by objects on Earth, g, is not constant everywhere on Earth and at every altitude, or how any "upward" force would actually originate/interact with the Earth, then says to understand general relativity while claiming ignorance at every example of general relativity put forward.

Try putting some actual mathematics, physics, basic equations in your explanation of how a force could propel the Earth upward indefinitely, and we'll see the validity of your hypothesis. Make sure to include the magnitudes of any forces/energies you think cause the "upward" propulsion, the origin/nature of these energies/forces, how they interact with the Earth, why they result in varying accelerations for different geographical locations as well as different altitudes, how the Earth is not simply destroyed by said force, into what the Earth is accelerating, etc. Good luck.
Btw, an equation is something with variables and numbers on either side of an "=" sign.

I guess you missed this experiment I posted, huh?  I guess you fail at reading.

Sure.  Perform this experiment:

Download an accelerometer app on your phone.
Stand on a chair.
Start said app.
Note acceleration reading as you stand on the chair.
Step off chair.
Note acceleration reading as you are in free fall.
Note acceleration reading as you stand on the Earth.

Let me know what your results are.

Try putting some actual mathematics, physics, basic equations in your explanation of how a force could propel the Earth upward indefinitely, and we'll see the validity of your hypothesis. Make sure to include the magnitudes of any forces/energies you think cause the "upward" propulsion, the origin/nature of these energies/forces, how they interact with the Earth, why they result in varying accelerations for different geographical locations as well as different altitudes, how the Earth is not simply destroyed by said force, into what the Earth is accelerating, etc. Good luck.
Btw, an equation is something with variables and numbers on either side of an "=" sign.

In order to give some proof of a flat Earth, you need to insert some numbers. I don't much care about what my phone's accelerometer reads for 0.3 seconds i'm in the air, not to mention I've no way to account for air resistance or the intrinsic errors in my phone's accelerometer.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 03, 2016, 03:41:50 PM

First of all, you know almost nothing about gravity yet you dismiss it as magical.

You forgot to back this up.

Just look at your forum signature.

Quote

You also clearly have no idea what the equivelence principal is as demonstrated by your second post on this thread.  According to relativity, saying that we are stationary and there is gravity is just as accurite as saying that we are accelerating and there is no gravity. 

Where did I say otherwise?

In your second post on this thread, as I stated.  You keep acting like that experiment proves we are accelerating, but the equivalence principal states that acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity.  There are exceptions like tidal forces and gravitational imperfections which can be observed happening on Earth, but the results of your experiment are expected on both models.

Quote

Gravity bends space, and since space is bearing down on us then we are by definition accelerating.

Space is bearing down on you?  What?!?

What I mean is that space is accelerating past us, so we are accelerating by definition.  This happens because mass warps space, and this has been proven by countless experiments.  Relativity says that space and time can bend and warp, this is the entire premise of relativity and it's the mechanism that makes light's speed constant.

Quote

To test your knowlage of relativity, I want you to tell me what would happen in the following scenario.  For this thought experiment, we will assume that Earth is round.  Immagine you are on Earth, and another person is in a space station orbiting close to a black hole 1,000 light years away.  According to relativity, time gets slower as the gravity field you are in gets stronger.  Let's say the person in the station is orbiting at just the right altitude such that one year for them is 1,000 years for you.  Now let's say you send a message to the station, for you it will take 1,000 years for the message to reach it's destination.  On the station though, 1,000 years = 1 year.  This means that the 1,000 years it took for the message to arive is just one year for our astronaut, yet from the astronauts point of view the Earth is still 1,000 light years away.  This means that the light went 1,000 light years in one year, how is this possible if the speed of light is constant?  If the person on the station measured the speed of the incoming signal then what would the result be?

The speed of light is invariant.

You didn't answer my questions. Tell me what happens in that thought experiment according to relativity and why.  Make sure your answer is not paradoxical.

Quote

You act as if gravity is a terible explenation that only an idiot would believe,

I didn't say that.  I said gravity does not exist as a force.

I again refer you to your forum signature.  It lacks anything remotely scientific, it's just gravity satire.  I suggest you change your forum signature to something that does not suggest that you think that we think that gravity is magical.

Quote

According to relativity, declaring the ground is stationary is just as accurite as any other reference frame, and this is the case in both models.  The math works out perfectly, you just have to factor in a force that accelerates everything down at a uniform rate.  This makes anything in free fall move in a parabolic trajectory as well as many other implications which I am sure you are very familear with.  If you then declare that Earth is accelerating up at 9.81 m/s² (which is also just as accurite as any other reference frame and works with both models), then the math chenges a bit.  Things in free fall move in a strait line as well as many other implications, but if you do the math then the result is always the same as it is if you declare the ground stationary.

Sorry, but this still makes no sense.

As you probobaly know, relativity states that all inertial reference frames are equivalent.  However, Einstein later figured out that incorporating gravity, you could declare anything stationary even if it's accelerating and/or rotating.  For example, car speedometers use the ground as a reference frame even though you and I both agree that the ground is not inertial.  Relativity only supports that notion when gravity is incorporated.

It should also be noted that string theory (made to reconsile quantum mechanics and relativity) independently predicts that gravitons (the hypothesized gravity carrier particle) exist.

So what force could cause all objects to accelerate down at a constant rate?  Gravity.

Except gravity does not exist as a force.  So...I don't know what you are trying to say.
[/quote]

Well can you think of any other forces (or aperent forces) that bend space such that everything accelerates at a constant rate when in free fall?  What I am trying to say is that gravity exists.  Weather it's a force is a matter of terminology and doesn't matter in this discussion.  It's real and that's all that matters here.

Quote

So really it comes down to this. Either Newton is right and Einstein is wrong, Einstein is right and Newton is wrong, or they are both right and gravity is real. a fictitious force.

Fixed it for you.

So you are saying that Newton is wrong about every action having an equal and opposite reaction?  Because that's the part that the lack of universal relativistic gravitation is breaking.  If this is true then surely you could give me an example of an action not having an equal and opposite reaction.

It should also be noted that relativity was derived from Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism (which imply that the speed of light is constant), and Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism were derived largely from Newton's work.  Are you saying that correct theories were derived from an incorrect premise?  You are making no sense.

Wow, mikeman is fuming mad.  I wonder why?  Did your world collapse around you?