Seafloor Spreading??

Quote from: Ecthelion on January 28, 2016, 08:06:35 AM

There is no or here. Gravity is the name of the force that accelerates you. It doesn't matter if you think you are pulled down or pushed up - a force is acting, and that force has a commonly accepted name: gravity

Do you know about the equivalence principle?

No. I took a brief look at wikipedia but what was described there seemed to either agree with what I am saying or have no relation to the discussion. If you have the time, could you try to briefly explain what you mean?

We have that exactly because there is a difference between gravity pulling you down and being in an accelerated frame of reference with regards to the forces in play. The fact that we in certain circumstances cant distinguish between them, does not mean that they are the same.

See that's weird, because wikipedia says:

gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Which seems to be in line with what I am saying. But perhaps I simply don't correctly understand what the principle means.

When you floor the gaspedal in your car, is it gravity pulling you back in your seat?

No. I wasn't saying that every force can be called gravity. I was saying that the force called gravity can be easily observed by anyone, at any time. How you believe gravity is caused has no bearing on whether or not gravity, as a force, exists.

Giving something a name, like gravity, does not make it a real thing.

It does - if a term has a definition, it is real. For it to exist in the empirical world, you of course need an observation - but gravity is constantly observed by anyone.

Too bad for you that gravity, as a force, does not in fact exist.  I could also call the Leprechaun in my back yard Fred, but that does not make him exist either, even though the word Leprechaun has a definition.  Perhaps you could try harder next time? 

No. I took a brief look at wikipedia but what was described there seemed to either agree with what I am saying or have no relation to the discussion. If you have the time, could you try to briefly explain what you mean?

Ok, it was kind of a backwards way of getting to my point, ill admit that.
What i mean is that gravity is slightly narrower defined than how you think of it.

My point with the gaspedal-thing was that that is actually exactly how FE explains gravity...Earth is accelerating, and what you feel as gravity is the same thing you feel in your car when it accelerates.

That is why i said "or gravity is real". Because because the distinction between gravity and the feeling of acceleration, at least in this context, is more than semantics.

Does that make sense?

Too bad for you that gravity, as a force, does not in fact exist.

Then what is pushing me down into my sofa cushions right now?

I could also call the Leprechaun in my back yard Fred, but that does not make him exist either, even though the word Leprechaun has a definition.  Perhaps you could try harder next time?

I didn't say anything that has a definition exists. I said any term that has a definition is real. There are more real things than things that exist empirically - everything that's in your head, for example.

Quote from: Ecthelion on January 28, 2016, 08:42:31 AM

No. I took a brief look at wikipedia but what was described there seemed to either agree with what I am saying or have no relation to the discussion. If you have the time, could you try to briefly explain what you mean?

Ok, it was kind of a backwards way of getting to my point, ill admit that.
What i mean is that gravity is slightly narrower defined than how you think of it.

My point with the gaspedal-thing was that that is actually exactly how FE explains gravity...Earth is accelerating, and what you feel as gravity is the same thing you feel in your car when it accelerates.

That is why i said "or gravity is real". Because because the distinction between gravity and the feeling of acceleration, at least in this context, is more than semantics.

Does that make sense?

I think it does, yeah, thanks .

So what I think you wanted to tell me was that "gravity" refers to a bit more than simply the direct experience of a force pushing you down. In which case I deliberately simplified it to mean only the actual observation without any of the theory behind it, in order to get my point across.

Which, frankly, seems to have worked, since TheEngineer has chosen to respond to not respond to me. And if someone stops responding to you on a forum such as this one, that means you just won the argument.

There is no force. When you jump, why are you weightless until you reach the ground?  Why is it that you only experience a force when you are in contact with the Earth (directly or otherwise)?

You could conclude that there is a force, but you would be wrong.

Why would you NOT be "weightless" until you reach the ground? Inertia makes you "weightless". Also you DO gravity act on you as you fall, it's the reason why you fall.

There is no or here. Gravity is the name of the force that accelerates you.

Gravity is the name given to a fictitious force.

It doesn't matter if you think you are pulled down or pushed up - a force is acting, and that force has a commonly accepted name: gravity. Saying gravity doesn't exist is either blatantly false or pointless semantics.

There is a big difference.  And the force of gravity does not exist.

@TheEngineer: You know this. I saw other posts of you where you demonstrated knowledge of Special Relativity. So you are aware that all frames of reference are equal and that therefore insisting that the earth is moving up is completely irrelevant.

Who was talking about the Earth moving up?

Why would you NOT be "weightless" until you reach the ground?

Because there is no force.

Inertia makes you "weightless".

What?

Also you DO gravity act on you as you fall, it's the reason why you fall.

No it sure is not.  How does a fictitious force act on a body?

Gravity is the name given to a fictitious force.

What is the real force then?

 

There is a big difference.

Namely?

And the force of gravity does not exist.

But there is a force.

Who was talking about the Earth moving up?

Up is relative. You said the ground was accelerating constantly.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 11:41:08 AM

Gravity is the name given to a fictitious force.

What is the real force then?

There isn't one (see below).

Namely?

One is pulling you down, the other is keeping you up.

But there is a force.

Only when you are in contact with the Earth, directly or otherwise.

Up is relative. You said the ground was accelerating constantly.

That response was not to you, but to a separate question asked by another user.

So it's not a force, it's certainly not gravity, yet it's affecting all of us including every physical thing on the planet? Then what is it exactly ? Magic ? Because saying there's something moving us and failing to explain why exactly it does that is about as helpful as saying this "essence" somehow can move us up and down.

Actually, you RE'ers have to use magic to explain 'gravity'.  See my signature.

Actually, you RE'ers have to use magic to explain 'gravity'.  See my signature.

How is that magic different from the magic in "flat earth + magic = accelerated flat earth"?

We are all magicians when push comes to shove, arent we?

Actually, you RE'ers have to use magic to explain 'gravity'.  See my signature.

Not at all. Moreover, the acceleration nonsense doesn't explain why gravity BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL OBJECTS is measurable. The gravitational constant also just happens to work perfectly for what we experience on earth.

See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/

The only magic is disbelief in something that's been proven for over 200 years.

How is that magic different from the magic in "flat earth + magic = accelerated flat earth"?

We are all magicians when push comes to shove, arent we?

Yes!  And that is the point of my signature: to point out the hypocrisy of RE'ers who claim the FE relies on magic to work. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Actually, you RE'ers have to use magic to explain 'gravity'.  See my signature.

Not at all.

Ok, then please fill in #2:
1. Mass
2. ...
3. 'Gravity'

The only magic is disbelief in something that's been proven for over 200 years.

No, the real magic is still believing in 'gravity', something that was proven incorrect just over 100 years ago.

You are not accelerating, huh?

Ok, let's do an experiment:  Stand on a scale.  If it reads zero, then you are correct and you are not accelerating.  If it reads anything other than zero (non-negative, for the Discount Chemist) then I am correct and you are accelerating.

Please perform this experiment; I will be eagerly awaiting the results!

I see no RE'ers have done this experiment.  Why would that be?  Wouldn't you guys love to prove me wrong?

Ok, let's do an experiment:  Stand on a scale.  If it reads zero, then you are correct and you are not accelerating.  If it reads anything other than zero (non-negative, for the Discount Chemist) then I am correct and you are accelerating.

Please perform this experiment; I will be eagerly awaiting the results!

I see no RE'ers have done this experiment.  Why would that be?  Wouldn't you guys love to prove me wrong?

This is only true if you accept that gravity doesnt exist in the first place. How does the fact that a scale reads more than 0 mean that we are accelerating? It could just as well be proof that gravity is real?

And how was gravity proved incorrect a 100 years ago? I didnt get that memo...

yea I don't understand how that disproves the presence of gravity. So you're basically deploying this version of "gravity" (or as you'd say absence of gravity) just to fit your model of the Earth's shape. And can you source the place where said credible scientists disproved the presence of gravity please?

This is only true if you accept that gravity doesnt exist in the first place.

What?

How does the fact that a scale reads more than 0 mean that we are accelerating?

F=ma

That a is for acceleration.  If acceleration is zero, then the force is zero.  So if your scale reads something positive, then you are accelerating.  Something you guys said was incorrect.  So what is it?

And how was gravity proved incorrect a 100 years ago? I didnt get that memo...

Wow.  I guess you are really out of touch.  No wonder you don't understand what I am saying.

And can you source the place where said credible scientists disproved the presence of gravity please?

Sure.  I would say Einstein is pretty credible:
https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf

the curvature of spacetime does not disprove gravity..

scientists will always be half right, its just the nature of the profession.

Uh, it absolutely does.

Oh, and by the way, you guys have been arguing against General Relativity this entire time.  Everything I have been saying is consistent with General Relativity.  So, let's please continue on how you disagree with GR.

I'm not arguing that newtons data wasnt incomplete.

And even if gravity is just something NOW used to measure smaller acts of force and movement.

Where mass is the very thing warping spacetime which creates the effect of weight, inertia, etc.

How does this disprove a RE? Once you move away from the topic of gravity it seems to be just a massive conspiracy. With very poor evidence, claiming that every video released about space is faked and or CGI is just ludicrous. Face it. This is the only decent leg you have to stand on. And its meager at that.

Who said anything about disproving RE?

I was disproving that gravity exists as a force.  Which I did.  You guys were trying to disprove General Relativity.  Shall we continue?

if your FE model is the only thing that works with this kind of "gravity", and you are saying that YES it indeed does encompass everything around us, then yes you are disproving RE.

Either way you disproved nothing. You're simply standing on Einstein's shoulder's and refusing to incorporate the quantum theory in any sort of way at all.

So do you think you'll be alive when commercialized space flight will be possible?

Would you be okay to throw down a few grand on a ride up there, just to crush your own dreams? would you take the risk? I wanna know.

Either way you disproved nothing.

I disproved gravity was a force.

You're simply standing on Einstein's shoulder's and refusing to incorporate the quantum theory in any sort of way at all.

What?

Would you be okay to throw down a few grand on a ride up there, just to crush your own dreams?

What dreams would those be?

Of course you would reply to everything excluding the first thing I said.

And oh are you really that certain the Earth is flat? Because I can't imagine it's going to take that long for someone to wanna come shoot you off into orbit.

if your FE model is the only thing that works with this kind of "gravity", and you are saying that YES it indeed does encompass everything around us, then yes you are disproving RE.

No, I'm pretty sure General Relativity works on the RE...

And so does Newton's gravity? You see why there's a problem. If you believe GR refutes Gravity into non existence..

Does Gravity work on a FE model? No..