Debunking the idea the earth accelerates upward

So, when I throw a ball in the air, it takes the same time to go up as it does to come down. This is standard if the earth is not accelerating up.

However, due to the FE belief of acceleration of earth upward the ball would fall in a shorter time than it took to go up - but this doesnt happen.

Now, unless u cant understand the difference/separate acceleration from movement, how do you explain this?

Gravity must exist?

Example, please?

I think the OP needs to research the Equivelance Principle.  Even Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.  Do you know more about physics than Einstein?

I think the OP needs to research the Equivelance Principle.  Even Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.  Do you know more about physics than Einstein?

*In a uniform gravitational field.

Are you suggesting a substantial enough difference in the earth's alleged gravitational field to affect an experiment on the scale of a thrown ball? Shame on both of you globularists.

I think the OP needs to research the Equivelance Principle.  Even Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.  Do you know more about physics than Einstein?

I was hoping he'd show me the math and see his own error.

Are you suggesting a substantial enough difference in the earth's alleged gravitational field to affect an experiment on the scale of a thrown ball? Shame on both of you globularists.

I made no such claim. He simply should not exclude the "local" part from what Einstein said. When you do you get pretend fe'ers claiming "Einstein thought the earth was flat".

So, when I throw a ball in the air, it takes the same time to go up as it does to come down. This is standard if the earth is not accelerating up.

However, due to the FE belief of acceleration of earth upward the ball would fall in a shorter time than it took to go up - but this doesnt happen.

Now, unless u cant understand the difference/separate acceleration from movement, how do you explain this?

Gravity must exist?

When you throw a ball up in the air, it accelerates in the opposite direction at about 9.8 m/s/s. That would happen on a RE and in the UA. The biggest problem with the UA version of gravity is that it is necessarily constant across the entire Earth, whereas gravity can actually be measured to be different in different locations and altitudes.

Quote from: jroa on July 27, 2016, 04:58:14 PM

I think the OP needs to research the Equivelance Principle.  Even Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.  Do you know more about physics than Einstein?

I was hoping he'd show me the math and see his own error.

Sorry, I guess I was over zealous. 

Quote from: Physicsteacher on July 27, 2016, 04:43:28 PM

So, when I throw a ball in the air, it takes the same time to go up as it does to come down. This is standard if the earth is not accelerating up.

However, due to the FE belief of acceleration of earth upward the ball would fall in a shorter time than it took to go up - but this doesnt happen.

Now, unless u cant understand the difference/separate acceleration from movement, how do you explain this?

Gravity must exist?

When you throw a ball up in the air, it accelerates in the opposite direction at about 9.8 m/s/s. That would happen on a RE and in the UA. The biggest problem with the UA version of gravity is that it is necessarily constant across the entire Earth, whereas gravity can actually be measured to be different in different locations and altitudes.

Sounds like you are simply assuming that no other forces could possibly ever have any effect on our perseption of "gravity."

The biggest problem with the UA version of gravity is that it is necessarily constant across the entire Earth, whereas gravity can actually be measured to be different in different locations and altitudes.

Of course it can be. The higher one's elevation the closer you are to celestial bodies exhibiting gravitation "up".  The inverse square law is in effect here.

Quote from: boydster on July 27, 2016, 05:17:40 PM

The biggest problem with the UA version of gravity is that it is necessarily constant across the entire Earth, whereas gravity can actually be measured to be different in different locations and altitudes.

Of course it can be. The higher one's elevation the closer you are to celestial bodies exhibiting gravitation "up".  The inverse square law is in effect here.

Well that's certainly a falsifiable claim, and so one that is valid for scientific testing. Whether or not it would hold up to scrutiny is something a true zeteticist should look into. But perhaps my wording wasn't clear enough, because I meant to explain that altitude wasn't the only factor (but I get that to be at a different altitude, you must also be at a different location in a 3D space, so my words could have been read that way). One could be at the same altitude, but different locations, and measure differences in gravity. There is a perfectly sound RE explanation for that, but I'm not aware of a FE explanation.

Also, as I am pondering your words, I think there is a contradiction. If the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s, how could something at a higher altitude (say, the top of Mt. Everest for example) experience a lesser acceleration? The entire Earth would be accelerating upwards at that speed. Celestial bodies pulling up on an object wouldn't slow the mountain top down, which is what would be required to change the measured force of gravity.

Quote from: boydster on July 27, 2016, 05:17:40 PM

The biggest problem with the UA version of gravity is that it is necessarily constant across the entire Earth, whereas gravity can actually be measured to be different in different locations and altitudes.

Of course it can be. The higher one's elevation the closer you are to celestial bodies exhibiting gravitation "up".  The inverse square law is in effect here.

Elevation does lead to changes in Gravity. But there are also differences that elevation cannot explain.

Well allegedly there's a .5% difference in the value between g in Oslo and Mexico City, for example. Which is why we see the burgeoning trade buying Mexican gold and selling it in Oslo. Err, wait, we don't. This is a money making scheme just waiting for you,  globularists!

However, due to the FE belief of acceleration of earth upward the ball would fall in a shorter time than it took to go up - but this doesnt happen.

Wait what?

I see why you flatties get tired of arguing with roundies sometimes.

Quote from: boydster on July 27, 2016, 05:17:40 PM

The biggest problem with the UA version of gravity is that it is necessarily constant across the entire Earth, whereas gravity can actually be measured to be different in different locations and altitudes.

Of course it can be. The higher one's elevation the closer you are to celestial bodies exhibiting gravitation "up".  The inverse square law is in effect here.

That's a surprisingly well thought out answer.

If this is true however, would we be able to predict gravitational differences depending on our location compared to the celestial bodies?

For example when you can see the Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus etc as opposed to when they are on the other side of the globe (different location on the FE).

By that logic when the sun is closer to me shouldn't I be able to measure a decrease in G?



For example I should be able to measure a difference in my gravitational attraction when the sun is at location A and location B.

Edit, sorry pic came out sideways..

Well allegedly there's a .5% difference in the value between g in Oslo and Mexico City, for example. Which is why we see the burgeoning trade buying Mexican gold and selling it in Oslo. Err, wait, we don't. This is a money making scheme just waiting for you,  globularists!

If you have a problem with the way gravitation is measured, a stupid story about gold is not going to disprove it.

Let's not get silly. Ski, how can someone standing on top of Mt. Everest measure a different gravitational pull than someone standing at sea level, when in the UA model they are both being pushed upwards by the Earth at 9.8 m/s/s? It's just not possible. If it happened, it would mean that Mt. Everest is shrinking by whatever the difference is between the measured acceleration due to gravity at the top vs. at sea level (since it would have to be pushing upwards more slowly).

And I don't understand what gold trading habits have to do with the conversation. This isn't really about economics.

I have been working on a theory in which the force that presses against the bottom of the Earth can permeate the mass of the Earth, but does so unevenly due to the different compositions of the Earth in different locations.   

I have been working on a theory in which the force that presses against the bottom of the Earth can permeate the mass of the Earth, but does so unevenly due to the different compositions of the Earth in different locations.

Surely then those parts would then move upwards faster or slower?

If you want to substitute acceleration for gravity you have to bear the consequences of acceleration.

E.g an object accelerating faster than another object will eventually overtake the slower obect.

Quote from: Physicsteacher on July 27, 2016, 04:43:28 PM

However, due to the FE belief of acceleration of earth upward the ball would fall in a shorter time than it took to go up - but this doesnt happen.

Wait what?

I see why you flatties get tired of arguing with roundies sometimes.

And they are all physics teachers, astronauts, and rocket scientists (and sometimes a doping cyclist).  No wonder globularism is rotting from the core.

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2016, 05:24:32 PM

The higher one's elevation the closer you are to celestial bodies exhibiting gravitation "up".  The inverse square law is in effect here.

That's a surprisingly well thought out answer.

If this is true however, would we be able to predict gravitational differences depending on our location compared to the celestial bodies?

For example when you can see the Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus etc as opposed to when they are on the other side of the globe (different location on the FE).

Tidal effects are measured for different celestial objects, but they are small. Much like the differences measured in g. 
Beyond the sun, moon, and the wanders, I imagine you could model the other stars homogeneously, but I've never done it.

Quote from: jroa on July 27, 2016, 05:58:17 PM

I have been working on a theory in which the force that presses against the bottom of the Earth can permeate the mass of the Earth, but does so unevenly due to the different compositions of the Earth in different locations.

Surely then those parts would then move upwards faster or slower?

If you want to substitute acceleration for gravity you have to bear the consequences of acceleration.

E.g an object accelerating faster than another object will eventually overtake the slower obect.

Think of a sail with a hole in it.  If you are in front of the hole in the sail, you are still basically traveling the speed of the ship, but you will slightly be pushed by the wind going through the hole, even if only slightly be measurable. 

Seems like that would be worth looking into then.

I was under the impression that the tides were affected by celestial bodies due to the oceans mass and as you stated before, the inverse square law. Humans being so small I didn't think we would be affected.

However, thinking about it now a minute measurable difference in G would be plausible depending on the location of celestial bodies.

I will have to read more.

Let's not get silly. Ski, how can someone standing on top of Mt. Everest measure a different gravitational pull than someone standing at sea level, when in the UA model they are both being pushed upwards by the Earth at 9.8 m/s/s? It's just not possible. If it happened, it would mean that Mt. Everest is shrinking by whatever the difference is between the measured acceleration due to gravity at the top vs. at sea level (since it would have to be pushing upwards more slowly).

And I don't understand what gold trading habits have to do with the conversation. This isn't really about economics.

How does an airplane fly when there is something accelerating it "down"? It experiences another force acting on it. The same thing is happening here. The sum of the forces acting on you at Everest result in less "downward force" than than the sum in Mexico.
Think of the money to be made buying gold in Mexico and selling it where it weighs more! You guys should be all over this.

Quote from: boydster on July 27, 2016, 05:55:47 PM

Let's not get silly. Ski, how can someone standing on top of Mt. Everest measure a different gravitational pull than someone standing at sea level, when in the UA model they are both being pushed upwards by the Earth at 9.8 m/s/s? It's just not possible. If it happened, it would mean that Mt. Everest is shrinking by whatever the difference is between the measured acceleration due to gravity at the top vs. at sea level (since it would have to be pushing upwards more slowly).

And I don't understand what gold trading habits have to do with the conversation. This isn't really about economics.

How does an airplane fly when there is something accelerating it "down"? It experiences another force acting on it. The same thing is happening here. The sum of the forces acting on you at Everest result in less "downward force" than than the sum in Mexico.
Think of the money to be made buying gold in Mexico and selling it where it weighs more! You guys should be all over this.

I'm not talking about an airplane, though. I'm talking about someone standing on the Earth at a different altitude than someone else standing on the Earth. If you are standing on something that is accelerating upwards at a certain rate, you must also be accelerating that rate - if you are accelerating slower then you are sinking into it. In your airplane analogy, that would be akin to the plane slowly losing altitude, because it would be accelerating upwards more slowly than the Earth underneath it.

Quote from: boydster on July 27, 2016, 05:55:47 PM

Let's not get silly. Ski, how can someone standing on top of Mt. Everest measure a different gravitational pull than someone standing at sea level, when in the UA model they are both being pushed upwards by the Earth at 9.8 m/s/s? It's just not possible. If it happened, it would mean that Mt. Everest is shrinking by whatever the difference is between the measured acceleration due to gravity at the top vs. at sea level (since it would have to be pushing upwards more slowly).

And I don't understand what gold trading habits have to do with the conversation. This isn't really about economics.

How does an airplane fly when there is something accelerating it "down"? It experiences another force acting on it. The same thing is happening here. The sum of the forces acting on you at Everest result in less "downward force" than than the sum in Mexico.
Think of the money to be made buying gold in Mexico and selling it where it weighs more! You guys should be all over this.

We know what mass is.

Do you have any evidence that all the gravitation variances are caused by celestial objects and not because mass bends spacetime on earth? And why do celestial objects been spacetime but not the earth?

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2016, 06:16:47 PM

How does an airplane fly when there is something accelerating it "down"? It experiences another force acting on it. The same thing is happening here. The sum of the forces acting on you at Everest result in less "downward force" than than the sum in Mexico.
Think of the money to be made buying gold in Mexico and selling it where it weighs more! You guys should be all over this.

I'm not talking about an airplane, though. I'm talking about someone standing on the Earth at a different altitude than someone else standing on the Earth. If you are standing on something that is accelerating upwards at a certain rate, you must also be accelerating that rate - if you are accelerating slower then you are sinking into it. In your airplane analogy, that would be akin to the plane slowly losing altitude, because it would be accelerating upwards more slowly than the Earth underneath it.

Place a steel ball on scale in an accelerating elevator in space. Now turn on a relatively weak electromagnet placed on the ceiling. Two forces are acting on the ball. It weighs less. It is possible for it to weigh less and to not rise from the floor depending on the vector sum of the forces acting on the ball. Inspite of "weighing less" (again w=m*acceleration) it still rises with the elevator accelerating at 9.8m/s/s.

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2016, 06:16:47 PM

How does an airplane fly when there is something accelerating it "down"? It experiences another force acting on it. The same thing is happening here. The sum of the forces acting on you at Everest result in less "downward force" than than the sum in Mexico.
Think of the money to be made buying gold in Mexico and selling it where it weighs more! You guys should be all over this.

We know what mass is.

I've never gone to a cash for gold shop,  but I'm pretty sure they buy it by the pound.

Do you have any evidence that all the gravitation variances are caused by celestial objects and not because mass bends spacetime on earth? And why do celestial objects been spacetime but not the earth?

Assuming anything like GR is true, mass on earth would have to bend spacetime in some measure.  The question would be if it is consequential.

Quote from: sokarul on July 27, 2016, 06:38:56 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2016, 06:16:47 PM

How does an airplane fly when there is something accelerating it "down"? It experiences another force acting on it. The same thing is happening here. The sum of the forces acting on you at Everest result in less "downward force" than than the sum in Mexico.
Think of the money to be made buying gold in Mexico and selling it where it weighs more! You guys should be all over this.

We know what mass is.

I've never gone to a cash for gold shop,  but I'm pretty sure they buy it by the pound.

In that case, I would suggest that you go to a gold shop and find out how they actually do business.  They generally buy gold by the troy ounce (watch out for shady dealers that say ounce, which could be 10% less than a Troy ounce), which is a unit of mass, not weight.  However, the term weight is more commonly used, even though they really mean mass.

I hope they don't use a scale then...

I hope they don't use a scale then...

I let you in on a secret. You can calibrate scales. Just FYI.