What if

So gravity seems to be a sticking point for most RE people.  They also say the universal accelerating model doesn't work.  I am just playing around thinking of a model that may solve those two issues.  Yes I know there are numerous issues with many other aspects of the FE that RE people have problems with.  I am just starting out and want to build a model that addresses as many of these concepts as possible. 
So to start, I propose a spinning central "celestial machine" that swings the Earth around and the centrifical force is what we experience as gravity.

Maybe there are multiple "Earths"  and NASA learned this during their attempts to go to space.  Just spitballing, don't go full on mental on me. 
Disclaimer:  I will repeat, I am just thinking of the very initial proposals of a model.  I am not suggesting this is correct in any way yet. 

A lot of "What-If'ers" come up with a complex, contrived explanation that addresses one tiny aspect of a topic that has thousands or millions of counterexamples. Think bigger.

What if the grower sprayed dangerous  chemicals on your stash before you got it? 
Come on, do we need to go through this exercise again?  JROWE did it better.

So gravity seems to be a sticking point for most RE people.  They also say the universal accelerating model doesn't work.  I am just playing around thinking of a model that may solve those two issues.

You stated there were two issues here.  I counted and got to zero issues.

So gravity seems to be a sticking point for most RE people.  They also say the universal accelerating model doesn't work.
...
So to start, I propose a spinning central "celestial machine" that swings the Earth around and the centrifical force is what we experience as gravity.

This still has the major issues against UA.
"Gravity" on Earth is not uniform.
The apparent acceleration downwards is least a the equator and greatest at the poles.
It also varies depending upon the distribution of mass under Earth which can be used to do things like find oil fields.
For this model, the Earth would need to be slightly concave (to produce a concave sea level rather than push it all to the sides), which should result in no variation except based upon height.
So this does not match.
Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

does it?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM

Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

does it?

"Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 ²
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s².

And on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.

Quote from: tomato on May 11, 2018, 07:38:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM

Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

does it?

"Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 ²
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s².

That makes sense.

And on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.

Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v²/r ~ 1/r.
And v is the linear speed, given by v = ωr (ω is the rotation speed).
Well, so also v²/r = (ωr)²/r = ω²r ~ r.

So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?

Quote from: rabinoz on May 11, 2018, 10:43:23 PM

Quote from: tomato on May 11, 2018, 07:38:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM

Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

does it?

"Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 ²
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s².

That makes sense.

Quote

And on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.

Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v²/r ~ 1/r.
And v is the linear speed, given by v = ωr (ω is the rotation speed).
Well, so also v²/r = (ωr)²/r = ω²r ~ r.

So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?

The top one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω.

Quote from: tomato on May 11, 2018, 11:19:26 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 11, 2018, 10:43:23 PM

Quote from: tomato on May 11, 2018, 07:38:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM

Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

does it?

"Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 ²
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s².

That makes sense.

Quote

And on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.

Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v²/r ~ 1/r.
And v is the linear speed, given by v = ωr (ω is the rotation speed).
Well, so also v²/r = (ωr)²/r = ω²r ~ r.

So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?

The top one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω.

But there's no ω at all in the top one, so how do you keep it constant? There's only v, which might or might not change with r when angular velocity is constant.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 12, 2018, 01:07:06 AM

Quote from: tomato on May 11, 2018, 11:19:26 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 11, 2018, 10:43:23 PM

Quote from: tomato on May 11, 2018, 07:38:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM

Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

does it?

"Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 ²
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s².

That makes sense.

Quote

And on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.

Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v²/r ~ 1/r.
And v is the linear speed, given by v = ωr (ω is the rotation speed).
Well, so also v²/r = (ωr)²/r = ω²r ~ r.

So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?

The top one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω.

But there's no ω at all in the top one, so how do you keep it constant? There's only v, which might or might not change with r when angular velocity is constant.

How do I wriggle my way out of this? Guess I don't and just say sorry, I wasn't thinking straight when I said:
It should have been,
On that "What if?" version higher altitude is closer to the centre of rotation, so has a slightly higher "gravity".
And, of course, my answer to your

So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?

Should have been, "The bottom one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω".

They do (or should) say that "One should put brain into gear before touching keyboard".

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2018, 02:10:50 PM

Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.

does it?

My bad. I clearly wasn't thinking clearly.
On his model as you get higher r decreases so "gravity" would also get weaker.

While the two would follow different trends (proportional to r, measured from the centre, vs proportional to 1/r^2 measured from the centre of Earth) it would be difficult to measure the difference without getting high enough to clearly see Earth is round.

I'll fix up the prior post.