Gravity is the cause of, and effect of, gravity.

Quote from: Danang on September 05, 2017, 02:42:42 AM

The problem of air resistance concept: it's supposed to just decrease the acceleration rate. Because the direction of the free fall object is downwards, air resistence will not be able to push terminal velocity. The supposedly result will be still acceleration. How come they related "mere" air resistance with terminal velocity?

No it doesn't.
Objects being blown by the wind is another example of air resistance.

Air resistance is a term given to describe the phenomenon where air exerts a force on an object that is moving relative to it.

It doesn't matter if the air is moving and the object is stationary, the object is moving and the air is stationary, or both are moving.
As long as there is a relative speed there will be a force applied.

In the case of reality where you have a falling object falling towards Earth; this object has 2 forces acting on it (for simplicity) there is the force of gravity pulling it down and the force due to air resistance. At terminal velocity these forces are equal and opposite and thus there is no acceleration. Below terminal velocity, gravity wins and the object accelerates towards Earth, above terminal velocity and air resistance wins and the object slows down (akin to just after opening a parachute).

In the case of your fantasy world you have an object released from Earth. Now the only force acting is air resistance.
At terminal velocity, the air resistance is applying a force that accelerates the object at the same rate as Earth, and thus there is no change in relative velocity. Below that, the force is less, and thus Earth accelerates faster making the object appear to fall.
Above the terminal velocity, the air accelerates the object faster than Earth and thus it appears to fall at a slower speed.

Terminal velocity can be used in other cases, such as levitating an object using a flow of air pushing it up. This would still work in an elevator that is accelerating upwards.

Let's prove my preposition: Is it true that the phase before terminal velocity IS:
a. Acceleration "as seen"
OR
b. Velocity? "as it is?"

This is crucial point to figure out what is real.

Experiment: jump off from a height

IF the organs undergoes pressure due to displacing up, it is really acceleration.
IF the organ feels no pressure, it is pure velocity. 

Let's prove my preposition: Is it true that the phase before terminal velocity IS:
a. Acceleration "as seen"
OR
b. Velocity? "as it is?"

It is acceleration. It is the same regardless of if you have this be the acceleration of Earth towards you, or gravity accelerating you towards Earth. The 2 are equivalent.

Experiment: jump off from a height

IF the organs undergoes pressure due to displacing up, it is really acceleration.
IF the organ feels no pressure, it is pure velocity.

Nope.
You would feel pressure if one part of your body was being accelerated (or had a force applied) and that had to transmit force to the rest.
If your entire body is being accelerated uniformly (such as by gravity) then you would not feel that force.

So again, you cannot distinguish between the 2 situations like that.

I also notice you have once again ignored the massive problems with your claim and how it compares to reality.

Quote from: Danang on September 05, 2017, 08:17:51 PM

Experiment: jump off from a height

IF the organs undergoes pressure due to displacing up, it is really acceleration.
IF the organ feels no pressure, it is pure velocity.

Nope.
You would feel pressure if one part of your body was being accelerated (or had a force applied) and that had to transmit force to the rest.
If your entire body is being accelerated uniformly (such as by gravity) then you would not feel that force.

I feel care is needed here. If I am being accelerated in a vehicle, I feel it. If I'm free-falling in a vacuum, I don't feel anything. I can conclude from this (as Einstein did) that no force is acting on me, I'm not accelerating.

Now have me falling in air at terminal velocity. Now I can feel acceleration of 1g upwards, just as I can when standing on the ground.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 06, 2017, 02:36:56 AM

Quote from: Danang on September 05, 2017, 08:17:51 PM

Experiment: jump off from a height

IF the organs undergoes pressure due to displacing up, it is really acceleration.
IF the organ feels no pressure, it is pure velocity.

Nope.
You would feel pressure if one part of your body was being accelerated (or had a force applied) and that had to transmit force to the rest.
If your entire body is being accelerated uniformly (such as by gravity) then you would not feel that force.

I feel care is needed here. If I am being accelerated in a vehicle, I feel it. If I'm free-falling in a vacuum, I don't feel anything. I can conclude from this (as Einstein did) that no force is acting on me, I'm not accelerating.

Now have me falling in air at terminal velocity. Now I can feel acceleration of 1g upwards, just as I can when standing on the ground.

No, this is different. In a car, your internal organs are not directly accelerated by the car, nor is the fluid in your inner ear. Which is why you feel it. Gravity accelerates EVERY molecule in your body in the same rate, which is why you don't feel accelerated. Einstein just found a different way to think about it.

I feel care is needed here. If I am being accelerated in a vehicle, I feel it. If I'm free-falling in a vacuum, I don't feel anything. I can conclude from this (as Einstein did) that no force is acting on me, I'm not accelerating.

Yes, care is needed here and gravity itself is quite a tricky subject, due to the question of it is is an acceleration or not.

But don't worry, gravity is not the only thing that shows this naive line of thinking to be wrong.
The reason you feel it is as I said before, a part of your body is having a force applied, and that force is transmitted to the rest of your body. That is why you feel it, and you would even feel it to some extent if you weren't being accelerated, such as if you were holding a bag of rice off the ground.

If every part of your body has an equal force acting on it then you cannot feel it as there is no transfer of force between parts of your body.
The same would apply to levitating a body using magnets and relying upon diamagnetic properties of water. In that case the force would act on every cell (everywhere that has water) and thus you would not feel it. It would feel akin to being at free fall in a vacuum, but you would no longer be falling.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 06, 2017, 06:11:51 AM

I feel care is needed here. If I am being accelerated in a vehicle, I feel it. If I'm free-falling in a vacuum, I don't feel anything. I can conclude from this (as Einstein did) that no force is acting on me, I'm not accelerating.

Yes, care is needed here and gravity itself is quite a tricky subject, due to the question of it is is an acceleration or not.

But don't worry, gravity is not the only thing that shows this naive line of thinking to be wrong.
The reason you feel it is as I said before, a part of your body is having a force applied, and that force is transmitted to the rest of your body. That is why you feel it, and you would even feel it to some extent if you weren't being accelerated, such as if you were holding a bag of rice off the ground.

If every part of your body has an equal force acting on it then you cannot feel it as there is no transfer of force between parts of your body.
The same would apply to levitating a body using magnets and relying upon diamagnetic properties of water. In that case the force would act on every cell (everywhere that has water) and thus you would not feel it. It would feel akin to being at free fall in a vacuum, but you would no longer be falling.

I see what you're saying and it's not unpersuasive, but I'm not wholly convinced. In a vehicle an accelerometer would detect acceleration but for a falling body there's no mechanism which could detect any change. If an object itself cannot say it is accelerating, then is it? The object's viewpoint is valid.

Now, could a body that is being wholly accelerated magnetically detect that acceleration? Without using parts that weren't magnetically influenced, then probably not, but I would judge that to be an unfair restriction.

I see what you're saying and it's not unpersuasive, but I'm not wholly convinced. In a vehicle an accelerometer would detect acceleration but for a falling body there's no mechanism which could detect any change. If an object itself cannot say it is accelerating, then is it? The object's viewpoint is valid.

That is because an accelerometer works in the same way as your body.
You have a component attached to the vehicle which is accelerated by the vehicle and another component attached in another way, such as by a spring, which then needs to be accelerated by the accelerometer. It is this transfer of force which is detected, not acceleration itself.

As for viewpoint, it would be akin to relativity, where you have 2 objects moving towards each other at constant speed. To each one, it feels like they are stationary and the other is moving. Can you say either is really moving?

But that applies more generally to acceleration as well. You can simply define yourself to be stationary and accelerating in a non-inertial reference frame.

Now, could a body that is being wholly accelerated magnetically detect that acceleration? Without using parts that weren't magnetically influenced, then probably not, but I would judge that to be an unfair restriction.

No. I think it would be an entirely fair restriction.
That makes it match gravity.
You have an object being accelerated by a field. This field acts on the entirety of the object, and applies an equal acceleration to all parts of the object.
This means it cannot detect its acceleration. Does that mean it isn't accelerating? I would say no.

If you really think it is unfair, then it would be similarly unfair to apply an equivalent restriction to gravity. That means you would need to find something that is not affected by gravity which you can then use to measure the acceleration due to gravity.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 07, 2017, 12:54:55 PM

I see what you're saying and it's not unpersuasive, but I'm not wholly convinced. In a vehicle an accelerometer would detect acceleration but for a falling body there's no mechanism which could detect any change. If an object itself cannot say it is accelerating, then is it? The object's viewpoint is valid.

That is because an accelerometer works in the same way as your body.
You have a component attached to the vehicle which is accelerated by the vehicle and another component attached in another way, such as by a spring, which then needs to be accelerated by the accelerometer. It is this transfer of force which is detected, not acceleration itself.

Of course.

As for viewpoint, it would be akin to relativity, where you have 2 objects moving towards each other at constant speed. To each one, it feels like they are stationary and the other is moving. Can you say either is really moving?

But that applies more generally to acceleration as well. You can simply define yourself to be stationary and accelerating in a non-inertial reference frame.

There's no absolute velocity, agreed. All frames of reference are equal when measuring velocity.

But all frames of reference are not equal when measuring acceleration. Inertial frames are special. Inertial frames are the standard against which acceleration is measured. And under General Relativity a frame in free-fall is inertial.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 07, 2017, 12:54:55 PM

Now, could a body that is being wholly accelerated magnetically detect that acceleration? Without using parts that weren't magnetically influenced, then probably not, but I would judge that to be an unfair restriction.

No. I think it would be an entirely fair restriction.
That makes it match gravity.
You have an object being accelerated by a field. This field acts on the entirety of the object, and applies an equal acceleration to all parts of the object.
This means it cannot detect its acceleration. Does that mean it isn't accelerating? I would say no.

If you really think it is unfair, then it would be similarly unfair to apply an equivalent restriction to gravity. That means you would need to find something that is not affected by gravity which you can then use to measure the acceleration due to gravity.

That was my point, really. For fairness there shouldn't be any restriction on measuring equipment. If something unaffected by gravity could be found then it would be fair to use. But to find such a thing would be to break the equivalence principle - which as far as we know, holds.

Why is the gravitational center of the Earth just that? Because that is where the mass is the densest.

Why is the mass the densest at the center of the Earth? Because that is where gravity is the strongest.

Debate.

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Oh boy. Don't let the atheists see this one! They might lose one of their oft held standby arguments.

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

There's no absolute velocity, agreed. All frames of reference are equal when measuring velocity.

But all frames of reference are not equal when measuring acceleration. Inertial frames are special. Inertial frames are the standard against which acceleration is measured. And under General Relativity a frame in free-fall is inertial.

Technically only an infinitesimally small frame is inertial under GR. This is because when you go to any real size one, tidal forces (or otherwise unequal gravitational forces) start to distort the frame.
At this scale, you cannot consider a falling object and Earth in the same inertial (GR) frame.

That was my point, really. For fairness there shouldn't be any restriction on measuring equipment. If something unaffected by gravity could be found then it would be fair to use. But to find such a thing would be to break the equivalence principle - which as far as we know, holds.

I disagree. For fairness, things should be considered equally relative to what you are trying to measure.
So until we can find something unaffected by gravity any comparisons to accelerators should be made to ones equally limited.
For now we can at least consider a hypothetical example where a part of an object isn't effected by gravity, or just consider an object large enough such that the sensor is outside any significant gravitational influence (at least of Earth), and then the part which is being accelerated is inside a gravitational well.

Quote from: The Troll God on September 03, 2017, 12:07:54 PM

Why is the gravitational center of the Earth just that? Because that is where the mass is the densest.
Why is the mass the densest at the center of the Earth? Because that is where gravity is the strongest.
Debate.

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.
Oh boy. Don't let the atheists see this one! They might lose one of their oft held standby arguments.

He did no such thing.
He asked 2 questions and provided false answers, both of which were shown to be wrong.

Your pathetic strawman is nothing like what people really do.

We don't know why this effect exists. The best we can come up with is mass distorting space time, but we don't know why.
We know it exists because we can observe the effects of gravity.

How is that religious at all?
We aren't just making shit up and asserting it is real.
We are observing something that exists and trying to figure out how it works.

Regardless, while gravity can explain why Earth is the shape it is (at least in part), that was not needed to establish that Earth was round. Gravity came quite some time after we figured out Earth is round.

Gravity is not needed to establish Earth is round. Earth being round is not needed to establish that gravity is real.

The main link is that gravity destroys the nonsense that is FE (unless you go to an infinite one, which there is still no basis for).

Quote from: The Troll God on September 03, 2017, 12:07:54 PM

Why is the gravitational center of the Earth just that? Because that is where the mass is the densest.

Why is the mass the densest at the center of the Earth? Because that is where gravity is the strongest.

Debate.

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Oh boy. Don't let the atheists see this one! They might lose one of their oft held standby arguments.

Let me understand this correctly, you believe a straw man argument is a proper defense of FET?  This issue taken with KingTroll's question is that his second premise is false and an incorrect understanding of the topic as presented.  Your summation has a similar flaw, your first premise "Why does gravity exist?  Because it has an effect." is grossly incorrect.  That was not stated by any member here other than you and a fellow flat earther and was, in fact, corrected multiple times by other contributors to this thread. 

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

You've used a flawed argument presented by an individual that does not fully grasp the topic being discussed and attempted to pass it off as your opponents position.  You then attack that position and claim victory.  Congratulations, you've defeated a straw man.

You've used a flawed argument presented by an individual that does not fully grasp the topic being discussed and attempted to pass it off as your opponents position.  You then attack that position and claim victory.  Congratulations, you've defeated a straw man.

If you want "straw-man arguments", have a look at almost all the flat earth videos on YouTube.
They describe how they think things work, be it lunar phases, eclipse or even aircraft attitude indicators (gyros), then use their own fallacious argument to "debunk" the Heliocentric Globe!


So much of the flat earthers' arguments boil down to, "I don't understand how the Globe works and that proves that the earth is flat!".

If you want "straw-man arguments", have a look at almost all the flat earth videos on YouTube.
They describe how they think things work, be it lunar phases, eclipse or even aircraft attitude indicators (gyros), then use their own fallacious argument to "debunk" the Heliocentric Globe!

With all the straw flying around you need to be so careful not to toss lighted matches around!

So much of the flat earthers' arguments boil down to, "I don't understand how the Globe works and that proves that the earth is flat!".

Someone should write a RE primer for this place.  I'm here because a coworker drank this kool-aid and I'm trying to understand their perspective better.  I almost see it as a sickness...

Quote from: rabinoz on September 10, 2017, 05:53:28 AM

If you want "straw-man arguments", have a look at almost all the flat earth videos on YouTube.
They describe how they think things work, be it lunar phases, eclipse or even aircraft attitude indicators (gyros), then use their own fallacious argument to "debunk" the Heliocentric Globe!

With all the straw flying around you need to be so careful not to toss lighted matches around!

So much of the flat earthers' arguments boil down to, "I don't understand how the Globe works and that proves that the earth is flat!".

Someone should write a RE primer for this place.  I'm here because a coworker drank this kool-aid and I'm trying to understand their perspective better.  I almost see it as a sickness...

From my bit of time here there appears to be 2 major things you have to 'accept' in order to swallow FE. 1) Question the observations made by anyone else. You can't rely on information given by science, or by other people. If you didn't see it, you can't trust that it's accurate. 2) Your eyes are a near perfect instrument. Trust them to always tell you the truth.

Now, you can have varying degrees of the two, but those appear to be two core 'tenets' of a belief in FE. There are of course other things, but if you can trust the testimony of other's, there's too much out there showing a round Earth. If you realize you can't always trust your eyes to show you the way the world actually is, you can see the problems in any of the various "I can see X 'over the curve' round Earth busted!" videos/ideas. I've seen very few confessed FE believers that don't have express some degree of both of these ideas.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 09, 2017, 11:50:26 AM

There's no absolute velocity, agreed. All frames of reference are equal when measuring velocity.

But all frames of reference are not equal when measuring acceleration. Inertial frames are special. Inertial frames are the standard against which acceleration is measured. And under General Relativity a frame in free-fall is inertial.

Technically only an infinitesimally small frame is inertial under GR. This is because when you go to any real size one, tidal forces (or otherwise unequal gravitational forces) start to distort the frame.
At this scale, you cannot consider a falling object and Earth in the same inertial (GR) frame.

Agreed, more or less. An inertial frame is necessarily local in curved spacetime. But that doesn't invalidate the point that something which is stationary relative to an inertial frame isn't accelerating, by definition. And free-falling frames are inertial.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 09, 2017, 11:50:26 AM

That was my point, really. For fairness there shouldn't be any restriction on measuring equipment. If something unaffected by gravity could be found then it would be fair to use. But to find such a thing would be to break the equivalence principle - which as far as we know, holds.

I disagree. For fairness, things should be considered equally relative to what you are trying to measure.
So until we can find something unaffected by gravity any comparisons to accelerators should be made to ones equally limited.
For now we can at least consider a hypothetical example where a part of an object isn't effected by gravity, or just consider an object large enough such that the sensor is outside any significant gravitational influence (at least of Earth), and then the part which is being accelerated is inside a gravitational well.

Again, the claim is that something 'unaffected by gravity' can't exist so to hypothesise such a thing is to beg the question. And comparison with a far away sensor doesn't help because, as you noted above, inertial frames are local under GR.

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2017, 12:13:09 PM

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

Yes, that is an equally religious example. Fire does not exist because it has an effect. Fire exists because things combust. Things combust because they reach a combustion temperature. Likewise, you can continue down this rabbit hole until you reach reasonably asserted axioms.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2017, 01:05:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2017, 12:13:09 PM

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

Yes, that is an equally religious example. Fire does not exist because it has an effect. Fire exists because things combust. Things combust because they reach a combustion temperature. Likewise, you can continue down this rabbit hole until you reach reasonably asserted axioms.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

Gravity is a label giving to an observation: the observation is.
1. Objects fall towards each other.
2. The moon orbits earth.
3. The earth moon pair, orbit the sun, as do the other planets in their own orbital paths.

Isaac Newton's came up with a law of universal gravitation, to explain this observation.
Albert Einstein refined the observation with the general theory of relativity.
And this has been put to the test, by creating artificial satellites, putting man on the moon, and placing probes on Mars.

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2017, 01:05:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2017, 12:13:09 PM

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

Yes, that is an equally religious example. Fire does not exist because it has an effect. Fire exists because things combust. Things combust because they reach a combustion temperature. Likewise, you can continue down this rabbit hole until you reach reasonably asserted axioms.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

Yes that is right, your straw man is religious akin to the tautology of believing in a holy book because it tells you to, not the actual reasoning used by scientists.

You seem to have left out bending space time as an explanation for gravity.

But how is things combusting any better an explanation than because mass pulls objects towards it.
Combusting because they reach combustion temperature (I assume you mean auto-ignition temperature) is just a tautology.
What is combustion temperature? The temperature at which things burn. So you are effectively saying they burn because they burn.
Instead you need to go into a deeper understanding, which just pushes the problem back further.

Why do they burn? Because they (along with the oxygen in the air) are in a high energy state and they can react with the air to reach a lower energy state, and they have enough energy to overcome the energy barrier preventing it.
But this now just raises 2 additional questions:
Why do these reactants and products have these energy states?
Why do these things want to go to the lower energy state?

All you are going with each explanation is pushing the problem back and you eventually reach a point where the only honest answer is we don't know.
And that applies to everything.
This includes the fundamental building blocks for why things burn.
It includes why electrons and quarks have charge. Why wave functions hybridise (i.e. form molecular orbitals). Why time is asymmetric.

We do not believe in things because we can explain them.
We believe in and accept things because it can be observed.
We believe in and accept models because they have explanatory power.

It doesn't matter why gravity exists or exactly how it works.
All that is important (for believing in and accepting gravity as real) is because it is the best explanation we have which can describe the observed force (real or apparent) between masses which is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance squared. At least in all cases where we can reliably measure the mass and distance without any serious doubt.

So no, the reality of why we accept gravity is not religious at all. It would be far more akin to zetetic reasoning.

Agreed, more or less. An inertial frame is necessarily local in curved spacetime. But that doesn't invalidate the point that something which is stationary relative to an inertial frame isn't accelerating, by definition. And free-falling frames are inertial.

Yes, under GR which has infinitesimally small inertial frames. Not under other models (which may or may not be flawed).

Again, the claim is that something 'unaffected by gravity' can't exist so to hypothesise such a thing is to beg the question. And comparison with a far away sensor doesn't help because, as you noted above, inertial frames are local under GR.

I think that is equally begging the question.
You are using that part of general relativity (that free falling reference frames are inertial) to make gravity special and allow an object being affected by gravity to be in free fall in an inertial reference frame.
If you don't start with that assumption and instead treat gravity as a field which accelerates or applies a force to objects you can then use that far away sensor to detect this force and thus conclude that gravity behaves like other things, a field which produces a force.

So it ultimately comes down to how you want to view it.
You can treat gravity as a force, in which case your analysis indicates it is a force.
Or you can treat gravity as curved space-time moving inertial reference frames, in which case your analysis will conclude it is curved space time moving inertial reference frames.

Personally, I prefer not restricting inertial reference frames to infinitesimally small points, but that would cause issues with the hypothetical possibility of wormholes with very significantly curved space time.

As for considering something unaffected by gravity, it is more challenging viewing gravity like that. If everything in the world experienced attractive electrostatic forces and had the same charge to mass ratio, would electrostatics no longer be a force and free falling charges be an inertial reference frame?

Something being an inertial reference frame or not should not be determined by the existence or lack thereof of something which is not affected by the phenomenon.

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2017, 01:05:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2017, 12:13:09 PM

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

Yes, that is an equally religious example. Fire does not exist because it has an effect. Fire exists because things combust. Things combust because they reach a combustion temperature. Likewise, you can continue down this rabbit hole until you reach reasonably asserted axioms.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

I would expect the FE community to do at least some basic homework regarding these issues rather than spout off with no regard for the fact that we are all communicating on the Internet; last time I checked it is a viable source of information.  I'll spare everyone here the volume of information on the Higgs Field, but you can read about here:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/1-the-basic-idea/

On July 4, 2012 CERN verified the existence of a new quantum particle that was predicted using the theory of the Higgs Boson particle.  The Higgs field imparts mass onto matter, which in turn is what causes matter to curve space-time.  The curvature of space-time is where gravitational effects are noted.  The cause of this curvature is subject to debate, but rest assured there are models that suitably address the issue and they are not coming from proponents of FE.  What is known is that the Higgs field imparts mass onto matter, which in turn creates a curvature of space-time.  The degree of curvature determines the strength of its gravitational pull, which is related to how massive an object is. 

So to say that there is some sort of worship of gravity and attempting to create an equivocation between it and religion is disingenuous, to say the least.  If the nature of god (or gods) was put under the same degree of scrutiny, there would be a better answer to the problem of evil other than faith based defense. In summation, John Davis, the phenomena that is gravity has been and is still undergoing intense observation, which is a hallmark of rigorous scientific exploration.  Real science does not rest on assumptions and seeks answers for what is unanswered.  The magnitude of problems facing FE like the solstices, lunar and solar eclipses, sunrise and sunset, the apparent size of the sun and moon using the FE model, explanation of why Special Relativity is only selectively applied for FE, how the refraction of light changes in magnitude based on time of day/location while simultaneously being disregarded when inconvenient, are all evidence that this is a crackpot idea dreamed up by people that like to argue but have no idea how to do so.

Flat Earth is a wishing well for people that would rather complain about being ignorant instead of doing something about being ignorant.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

  Gravity does not exist because mass pulls objects towards it. This is effect of the gravity. And only you are the one doing circular reasoning here. Others just say that we don't know exactly how gravity works but we know that it has effect which manifest itself by pulling objects toward it. You also don't have explanation why on flat earth things are stuck to the surface and fall. You say because of acceleration but going further as you went with fire example can you describe what causes acceleration and how it is achieved? What powers it? Or if you don't subscribe to UA then how it works in your FE? Can you give thorough explanation?

If gravity is created by the curve in space that the mass of an object makes. The point on the object where it sits in this imaginary curve would have a greater gravity than any other point on the globe 🌎 Wouldn't it?

If gravity is created by the curve in space that the mass of an object makes. The point on the object where it sits in this imaginary curve would have a greater gravity than any other point on the globe 🌎 Wouldn't it?

No. Other points also often have objects sitting there.
Additionally, the contribution from this tiny mass is quite small.
However, it can have no net effect on the motion of the object. That is because the field (or curvature of space-time) due to itself is flat at its centre of gravity, i.e. no curve.
You can also think of it as all the little bits of the object trying to attract each other and the result for the centre of gravity of the object is these attractions all cancel out.

However, for another object there will be a net effect but it is usually too small to detect reasonably unless you are specifically designing an experiment to do so (by maximising the interactions).

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2017, 01:48:26 PM

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2017, 01:05:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2017, 12:13:09 PM

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

Yes, that is an equally religious example. Fire does not exist because it has an effect. Fire exists because things combust. Things combust because they reach a combustion temperature. Likewise, you can continue down this rabbit hole until you reach reasonably asserted axioms.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

Gravity is a label giving to an observation: the observation is.
1. Objects fall towards each other.
2. The moon orbits earth.
3. The earth moon pair, orbit the sun, as do the other planets in their own orbital paths.

Isaac Newton's came up with a law of universal gravitation, to explain this observation.

Incorrect. He came up with the law of universal gravitation which DESCRIBES this observation.

Albert Einstein refined the observation with the general theory of relativity.
And this has been put to the test, by creating artificial satellites, putting man on the moon, and placing probes on Mars.

And after all this we still only have the description - not the how or even why that description relates necessarily to the model they say it does. Or even if it is an accurate description!

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2017, 01:48:26 PM

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2017, 01:05:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2017, 12:13:09 PM

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

Yes, that is an equally religious example. Fire does not exist because it has an effect. Fire exists because things combust. Things combust because they reach a combustion temperature. Likewise, you can continue down this rabbit hole until you reach reasonably asserted axioms.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

I would expect the FE community to do at least some basic homework regarding these issues rather than spout off with no regard for the fact that we are all communicating on the Internet; last time I checked it is a viable source of information.  I'll spare everyone here the volume of information on the Higgs Field, but you can read about here:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/1-the-basic-idea/

On July 4, 2012 CERN verified the existence of a new quantum particle that was predicted using the theory of the Higgs Boson particle.  The Higgs field imparts mass onto matter, which in turn is what causes matter to curve space-time.  The curvature of space-time is where gravitational effects are noted.  The cause of this curvature is subject to debate, but rest assured there are models that suitably address the issue and they are not coming from proponents of FE.  What is known is that the Higgs field imparts mass onto matter, which in turn creates a curvature of space-time.  The degree of curvature determines the strength of its gravitational pull, which is related to how massive an object is. 

So to say that there is some sort of worship of gravity and attempting to create an equivocation between it and religion is disingenuous, to say the least.  If the nature of god (or gods) was put under the same degree of scrutiny, there would be a better answer to the problem of evil other than faith based defense. In summation, John Davis, the phenomena that is gravity has been and is still undergoing intense observation, which is a hallmark of rigorous scientific exploration.  Real science does not rest on assumptions and seeks answers for what is unanswered.  The magnitude of problems facing FE like the solstices, lunar and solar eclipses, sunrise and sunset, the apparent size of the sun and moon using the FE model, explanation of why Special Relativity is only selectively applied for FE, how the refraction of light changes in magnitude based on time of day/location while simultaneously being disregarded when inconvenient, are all evidence that this is a crackpot idea dreamed up by people that like to argue but have no idea how to do so.

Flat Earth is a wishing well for people that would rather complain about being ignorant instead of doing something about being ignorant.

You have no understanding of science what-so-ever. For example your claim 'Real science does not rest on assumptions and seeks answers for what is unanswered' is impossible to defend, and I'd love to see you start to try. Go on. Give it a whirl.

Furthermore, the discovery of the higgs boson does not explain how matter curves space time, or even what 'space time' is. But that's ok. We can just keep shifting down the burden of your religion to other imaginary particles. Old magic graviton is what communicates the matter/mass to space time. But then again, we don't even have to go this far - let us not forget, the higgs boson has never been observed either.

It can be shown there are infinitely other scenarios that would cause each and every experimental result that 'shows' a higgs boson. I don't expect you to understand this, because you are clearly a simpleton that is only educated as far as your hand reaches to your mouth.

We can just keep shifting down the burden of your religion to other imaginary particles. Old magic graviton is what communicates the matter/mass to space time. But then again, we don't even have to go this far - let us not forget, the higgs boson has never been observed either.

That isn't religion, it is science.
It is how EVERYTHING in science is.
We do not know the ultimate reason for loads of things. We just push the problem back a step with each explanation. And that applies to everything, even your fire example.

So based upon that should we just assume that fire or combustion isn't real?

It can be shown there are infinitely other scenarios that would cause each and every experimental result that 'shows' a higgs boson. I don't expect you to understand this, because you are clearly a simpleton that is only educated as far as your hand reaches to your mouth.

This is quite unbecoming behaviour of a guy in your position. Your post should be moved to the Angry Ranting forum.

Reported

Quote from: MouseWalker on September 10, 2017, 03:18:59 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 10, 2017, 01:48:26 PM

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2017, 01:05:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2017, 12:13:09 PM

Well done pointing out how religious the round earth view really is. Why does gravity exist? because it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because gravity exists.

Its not round earth view. Its again your lack of understanding which you then attribute to round earth as its failure. Gravity exists and has effect. It does not exist because it has effect. But effect exist because gravity exist. Or are you really so dumb that you think that fire exist because effect exist? Following your logic - fire exist becaus it has an effect. Why does this effect exist? because fire exists.
And so on with everything which causes some effect. Although its fascinating to know that flat earthers think that anything that causes some effect exist because of that effect.

Yes, that is an equally religious example. Fire does not exist because it has an effect. Fire exists because things combust. Things combust because they reach a combustion temperature. Likewise, you can continue down this rabbit hole until you reach reasonably asserted axioms.

Unfortunately, we have no such description for gravity.  Gravity exists because mass pulls objects towards it. Why does gravity pull objects towards it? Either because of a religious belief in Einstien's aether, gravitons, or a religious belief in some basic law - none of which are any more solid than 'faeries pull things to mass'. It is not the cause and the effect, otherwise this is circular reasoning.

Gravity is a label giving to an observation: the observation is.
1. Objects fall towards each other.
2. The moon orbits earth.
3. The earth moon pair, orbit the sun, as do the other planets in their own orbital paths.

Isaac Newton's came up with a law of universal gravitation, to explain this observation.

Incorrect. He came up with the law of universal gravitation which DESCRIBES this observation.

Quote

Albert Einstein refined the observation with the general theory of relativity.
And this has been put to the test, by creating artificial satellites, putting man on the moon, and placing probes on Mars.

And after all this we still only have the description - not the how or even why that description relates necessarily to the model they say it does. Or even if it is an accurate description!

Yes and even with our ignorance, we have put 12 men on the moon, we have satellites,  and we have probes on Mars.  All based on those laws and theories.