Acceleration is not constant on Earth

  • 453 Replies
  • 11580 Views
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #270 on: August 03, 2019, 03:47:25 PM »

In actual fact, this is true of any so called "scientific fact." It's almost like science has no ability to determine the cause of anything.

And yet look at what has been achieved through science.  The fact we are having this conversation, for instance.

But science has limits.  We can only really verify what can be observed, measured and tested.  And even then, better explanations may come along later.  Theoretical physicists can propose hypotheses to make the maths check out, but without validation they remain hypotheses.

So we can observe and test the effects of gravity, but finding evidence of the fundamental workings is a damn sight harder.

Letís assume itís gravitons.  How do we directly detect gravitons?  Basically, we canít.  Apparently the starship Enterprise can, but thatís just space fantasy.  In the real world, thereís nothing we could possibly build to that could detect them.

If you have an amazing idea how scientists are supposed to confirm how gravity works on a quantum level, you can earn yourself a Nobel prize.  Otherwise, youíre complaining that scientists donít just know everything without having to investigate it.  And that really would be magic.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #271 on: August 03, 2019, 04:14:44 PM »
I think the basic point is thereís so much unexplained stuff in the UA ďmodelĒ, for example:
'Certain users conveniently forgetting it every time they're told' is not the same thing as 'unexplained.' Only your third point there really even comes close to potentially unexplained, and that's more its own kind of argument than anything to do with UA.

I donít remember ever seeing an explanation for how the sun does the these circles above us, changing radius over the year, but somehow still doing one loop per day.

I donít remember seeing more than a couple of vague ideas for the cause of the accelerator.  Certainly nothing close to the level of fundamental principles John expects for gravity.

And sure, pretty much all flat earth ideas have this incredibly obvious disparity between where they say things are and where we see them.  But that doesnít make it any less of a problem for UA. 

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #272 on: August 03, 2019, 04:58:52 PM »
So... when I point out that objects on Earth exert gravity and this can be detected... that means objects on Earth don't exert gravity.
No it doesn't.
It means objects on Earth exert gravity, unlike what celestial gravitation needs.

How about you address what I say rather than strawmanning it?
While you are at it, quit with the insults.

Objects on Earth exerting gravity does not contardict FET, so long as the majority of the mass of the Earth itself is not exerting gravity.
You only need enough to exert gravity to overcome the forces preventing Earth from collapsing into a sphere.

When you need to actively look for the situations where it doesn't work
I don't need to actively look.
I just need to think about how such forces would work.
When you need to avoid these cases that shows your argument is dumb.

Yep, the stars would need different forces, good thing they aren't all in the exact same location. The stars that aren't under the correct force would not be visible, they weren't made yesterday.
And that would be an argument, if the stars were always in the same position, and that position was stable.
But the stars change position, especially the sun which goes over a wide variety of positions with plenty of stars there as well.
And the position is unstable.
Following your idea of a weak flow above Earth, with it reforming more as you get further away, if the stars drift any further away from Earth than their perfect position, the force increases and they are blown away. If they drift any closer to Earth then the force is too weak and the fall.

So it simply doesn't work.
Every object in the sky should have either already fallen to Earth or already have been blown away.

Earth blocks the accelerator - logical.
As already shown, there is nothing logical about that as the accelerator is not behaving in the same way as wind.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing again.
No, that would be you.
I am arguing to point out a horribly flawed argument.
'Certain users conveniently forgetting it every time they're told' is not the same thing as 'unexplained.'
That's right. So why bring it up?
There is so much that isn't explained with UA.
There is no explanation for why UA is so selective and precise.

People repeatedly dodging the explanations or saying "we don't know" is not the same thing as explained.

If there was nothing in the sky and g was constant around Earth then it would be fairly okay with the main unexplained point being why Earth is accelerating in the first place.
So no, even his first point is unexplained.

If you have an explanation for what causes the acceleration feel free to provide it.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #273 on: August 03, 2019, 05:31:26 PM »
So... when I point out that objects on Earth exert gravity and this can be detected... that means objects on Earth don't exert gravity.
No it doesn't.
It means objects on Earth exert gravity, unlike what celestial gravitation needs.
Great, except your words were "your highly selective celestial gravitation where the stars are made of magic and can exert gravity but not objects on Earth." Don't accuse me of straw manning when your lies are that obvious. I don't know why I ever even bother talking to you.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #274 on: August 03, 2019, 05:52:50 PM »
Don't accuse me of straw manning when your lies are that obvious. I don't know why I ever even bother talking to you.
Other than using the word "magic", there is no strawmanning there.
The basis of the celestial gravity you presented was that the stars exert gravity, but Earth, as a whole does not have any significant gravity.
The problem is that every material on Earth that we have tested does exert gravity, yet you think it is irrational to conclude that all materials would, but think it is fine to just guess that the stars do but most of Earth doesn't?

I don't know why you bother talking either, as you don't bother to address what is said.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #275 on: August 03, 2019, 05:57:31 PM »
I don't know why you bother talking either, as you don't bother to address what is said.
Jesus christ you're as bad as Rab.
So, let's recap.
I pointed out experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity.
You claim I in fact said nothing on Earth exerts gravity and celestial objects are exempt under celestial gravitation.
I point out your misrepresentation.
You claim objects on Earth do exert gravity now, the complete opposite of what you previously claimed, and somehow blame me for straw manning by quoting you.
I point out you just switched back.
You insist you were right all along despite claiming two diametrically opposed things.

Sure. I'm the one that ignores everything. Every single time I try talking to you, every single time... Good riddance.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #276 on: August 03, 2019, 06:30:42 PM »
I pointed out experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity.
But the justification that FEers need is that celestial mass exert gravitation, and terrestrial mass does not (at least the majority of it).

You claim I in fact said nothing on Earth exerts gravity and celestial objects are exempt under celestial gravitation.
No, I claim you make it highly selective where celestial objects exert it, but Earth doesn't, even though the evidence is of Earth, not celestial objects.
That is not me misrepresenting your position.

You claim objects on Earth do exert gravity now, the complete opposite of what you previously claimed
No, that has always been my claim.
My claim was that under plenty of FE models, it doesn't.

Dishonestly presenting what I say about a particular model has as what I think is either strawmanning me or blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

And again, you just focus on this, rather than the actual topic of discussion, the highly selective universal accelerator with your highly selective gravity.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #277 on: August 03, 2019, 10:31:28 PM »
I pointed out experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity.
My objection all along has been the use of Einstein's Equivalence Principle to make UA "look respectable".
But the essence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle is that Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass.

Now you say "experiments on Earth demonstrate that gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth, and this is an aspect of the justification FEers use for celestial gravitation to show that, well, masses exert gravity".

But if "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth" then according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.

Now the flat-earthers can discard UA or discard using Einstein's Equivalence Principle to lend respectability to it.
Or are flat-earthers permitted to cherry-pick bits and pieces of Einstein's Equivalence Principle and reject the rest?

Now call me all the names you like, it seems all you are capable of doing!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #278 on: August 04, 2019, 03:29:53 AM »
But if "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth" then according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
That isn't true though. At all. That is just complete and utter rubbish. The EEP makes absolutely no claims as to what the origin of gravity is, it isn't even tangentially connected to it. It does not give a damn what causes it, how often it's caused, whether it's always present, it only makes a claim about what happens when it is there. Nothing about it stops working if you start positing a mass that doesn't exert gravity hanging out in the elevator with you. That is nonsense, Rab.

Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not the sum total of all of Einstein's work on gravity and relativity.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #279 on: August 04, 2019, 03:57:34 AM »
But if "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth" then according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
That isn't true though. At all. That is just complete and utter rubbish. The EEP makes absolutely no claims as to what the origin of gravity is, it isn't even tangentially connected to it. It does not give a damn what causes it, how often it's caused, whether it's always present, it only makes a claim about what happens when it is there. Nothing about it stops working if you start positing a mass that doesn't exert gravity hanging out in the elevator with you. That is nonsense, Rab.
No, it is not! You said "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth". But all mass must be Inertial Mass otherwise it is not mass.
All definitions of mass in physics seem to boil down to:
Quote
Scientific Definition of Mass
Mass is the quantity of inertia (resistance to acceleration) possessed by an object.

If you disagree, then please explain how you could even define a mass that was not an Inertial Mass.

So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.

Now, you might claim that we are talking about flat earth physics here.
That's fine and accepted. Just stop cherry-picking the bits of Einstein's work that fits into this flat earth physics - especially as I've seen no consistent flat earth physics yet.

Quote from: Jane
Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not the sum total of all of Einstein's work on gravity and relativity.
Of course "Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not the sum total of all of Einstein's work on gravity and relativity"! Whoever said that it was?

Einstein's Equivalence Principle was just the first step of his long path to his Theory of General Relativity.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #280 on: August 04, 2019, 04:30:02 AM »
No, it is not! You said "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth". But all mass must be Inertial Mass otherwise it is not mass.
All definitions of mass in physics seem to boil down to:
Quote
Scientific Definition of Mass
Mass is the quantity of inertia (resistance to acceleration) possessed by an object.
And why does that mean it exerts gravity, rather than merely being subject to it?
Seriously getting sick of needing to repeat that given you ignore it every single time. Stop rambling about nothing. The EEP has no relevance to the origin of gravity, it's only concerned about describing it assuming it does exist regardless of what traits it has. You don't have an argument, there's a reason you completely skip over the actually important details every time. Stop wasting everybody's time with your incessant rants.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #281 on: August 04, 2019, 04:32:34 AM »
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
Technically no.
Under Newtonian gravity, yes, they must all exert gravitation, to fill in the F=G M m r2
With relativity the 2 aspects of gravity can be separated.
The first is the mass or energy which curves space time.
The second is the mass or energy that is following the curved space time.

The equivalence principle says that the second mass is the same as inertial mass.
The rational conclusion to this is that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same (or as I like to put it, the gravitational charge is mass).
However, it still allows a hypothetical other way of bending space (or having it unconnected to inertial mass entirely), which keeps the equivalence principle as objects in this bent space time still act as if they were in an accelerating reference frame with the force of gravity a pseudoforce.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #282 on: August 04, 2019, 05:55:35 AM »
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle all materials on Earth, including the Earth itself, must exert gravitation.
Technically no.
Under Newtonian gravity, yes, they must all exert gravitation, to fill in the F=G M m r2
With relativity the 2 aspects of gravity can be separated.
The first is the mass or energy which curves space time.
The second is the mass or energy that is following the curved space time.
But don't "both" mass/energies curve space time and are following the curved space time?
In other words these mass/energies are "technically" inseparable.
This combined with the non-linearity of the equations makes closed solutions for GR so far impossible except for special cases such as the Schwarzschild metric.

In the Schwarzschild metric you could separate these mass/energies but it only applies in the case of small bodies in the presence of one large spherically symmetric body, such as the earth with orbiting satellites etc.

Quote from: JackBlack
The equivalence principle says that the second mass is the same as inertial mass.
The rational conclusion to this is that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same (or as I like to put it, the gravitational charge is mass).
However, it still allows a hypothetical other way of bending space (or having it unconnected to inertial mass entirely), which keeps the equivalence principle as objects in this bent space time still act as if they were in an accelerating reference frame with the force of gravity a pseudoforce.
That would seem to apply only if mass and energy are regarded as separate but I'd understood that in GR they were inseparable and in cases like this one should speak of mass/energy.

But I'm no expert on GR but this would seem consistent with the above Mathpages 2.3  The Inertia of Energy.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #283 on: August 04, 2019, 07:22:07 AM »
The authors of the paper are in the video. They claim the satellite provided evidence for general relativity by using gravitational redshift brought on by changes in gravitation from changes in altitude.
The equivalence principal is part of GR. Confirming the EP would confirm GR. The author states ďWe confirmed general relativity.Ē 

You wanted evidence for gravitational changes by altitude, you got it.

The Equivalence Principle says that gravity is like being on an upwardly accelerating platform or earth. Gravity Probe A and others claim to have confirmed the Equivalence Principle by comparing clock rates to clocks on the ground.

How could a detection of weak gravity at higher altitudes be a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

" The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field. "

It says that EP = Uniform Gravitational Field

" The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field.

The equivalence principle can be understood by picturing a rocket ship in two scenarios. First, imagine a rocket ship that is at rest on the Earth's surface; objects in the rocket ship are being accelerated downward at 9.81 m/s≤. Now, imagine a rocket ship that has escaped Earth's gravitational field and is accelerating upwards at a constant 9.81 m/s≤ due to thrust from its rockets; objects in the rocket ship that are dropped will fall to the floor with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s≤. This example shows that a uniformly accelerating reference frame is indistinguishable from a gravitational reference frame. "

Again, EP = Uniform Gravitational Field.

" The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that deeper in the gravity well the time flows slower,[4] and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million. "

It says that the Gravity Probe A ballistic rocket is a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle which predicts a uniform gravitational field and the changing clock rates which should occur.

I am unable to find where the weakening of gravity is described.

Maybe read your own post again.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17266
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #284 on: August 04, 2019, 08:26:23 AM »
That's what the Equivalence Principle predicts:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Gravitational_Time_Dilation

Quote
The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity
By Fred C. Adams, PhD and Prof. Greg Laughlin

On p.116 of The Five Ages of the Universe (Archive), its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an upwardly accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

  ď however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner. Ē

The authors explain that time dilation should be a natural consequence in an upwardly accelerating rocket, and acknowledge that its application to gravity on earth is "strange" and "bizarre".

Time dilation at different altitudes has been confirmed in the laboratory. See: Optical Clocks and Relativity (Archive) "

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #285 on: August 04, 2019, 08:27:42 AM »
No, it is not! You said "gravity is exerted by some materials on Earth". But all mass must be Inertial Mass otherwise it is not mass.
All definitions of mass in physics seem to boil down to:
Quote
Scientific Definition of Mass
Mass is the quantity of inertia (resistance to acceleration) possessed by an object.
And why does that mean it exerts gravity, rather than merely being subject to it?
Seriously getting sick of needing to repeat that given you ignore it every single time. Stop rambling about nothing. The EEP has no relevance to the origin of gravity, it's only concerned about describing it assuming it does exist regardless of what traits it has. You don't have an argument, there's a reason you completely skip over the actually important details every time. Stop wasting everybody's time with your incessant rants.

The equivalence principle was only a step towards more fully formed theories of special and general relativity.

According to general relativity, mass exerts gravity, it has to.

Doesnít it seem a bit odd to rely on the equivalence principle to justify UA, while rejecting what general relativity says about gravity?  How do people decide that the equivalence principle should be treated as fact, while the rest of it can be dismissed?

Sounds like some serious cherry picking to me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #286 on: August 04, 2019, 09:32:33 AM »
Doesnít it seem a bit odd to rely on the equivalence principle to justify UA, while rejecting what general relativity says about gravity?  How do people decide that the equivalence principle should be treated as fact, while the rest of it can be dismissed?

Sounds like some serious cherry picking to me.
Because they're... not the same thing? Like, the evidence underpinning them, the key postulates, it's all pretty different. It's cherrypicking inasmuch as they cherrypick all of science, but it's a bit silly to single out EEP. Especially as cherrypicking covers more just going for whatever's convenient, which isn't going to be the case for an actual FEer; sure, you're free to believe that, but it doesn't change how they'd argue they only go for that which has more justification.

Plus GR doesn't prove mass exerts gravity, it assumes it. Like, that's just how it works. It doesn't prove most of what people associate with it; SR didn't prove that the speed of light was a limit, people already suspected that at the time, Einstein was just the guy that stopped speculating about why and just took it as a postulate, came up with transformations to figure out how it worked, and published the consequences. It got accepted because those consequences were in line with observations, such as the transit of Mercury. You can't mathematically prove all masses exert a gravitational field at all times, you just... can't.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #287 on: August 04, 2019, 09:54:25 AM »
That's what the Equivalence Principle predicts:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Gravitational_Time_Dilation

Quote
The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity
By Fred C. Adams, PhD and Prof. Greg Laughlin

On p.116 of The Five Ages of the Universe (Archive), its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an upwardly accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

  ď however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner. Ē

The authors explain that time dilation should be a natural consequence in an upwardly accelerating rocket, and acknowledge that its application to gravity on earth is "strange" and "bizarre".

Time dilation at different altitudes has been confirmed in the laboratory. See: Optical Clocks and Relativity (Archive) "
Iím aware what the EP states. Do you have a point?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

kachowabunga 17

  • 44
  • You're not just wrong, you're stupid.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #288 on: August 04, 2019, 12:17:23 PM »
Wait...
If the Earth has to move up at 9.8 m/s2 to create "gravity" on the flat earth, that means earth is infinitely accelerating and would reach ridiculous speeds quite easily. Does that mean that over thousands of years Earth has been constantly accelerating? that makes NO sense.
You're not just wrong, you're stupid.

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12993
  • You keep using that word.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #289 on: August 04, 2019, 02:22:57 PM »
Wait...
If the Earth has to move up at 9.8 m/s2 to create "gravity" on the flat earth, that means earth is infinitely accelerating and would reach ridiculous speeds quite easily. Does that mean that over thousands of years Earth has been constantly accelerating? that makes NO sense.

It would reach ridiculous speeds relative to what, exactly?
Come play a game of Werepenguin Two-Night Stand!

https://werepenguin.space/index.php?topic=57.0

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #290 on: August 04, 2019, 02:54:59 PM »
But don't "both" mass/energies curve space time and are following the curved space time?
In other words these mass/energies are "technically" inseparable. 
This combined with the non-linearity of the equations makes closed solutions for GR so far impossible except for special cases such as the Schwarzschild metric.
Yes, under relativity.
But the equivalence principle is only the latter part.
It leaves the hypothetical possibility of something else bending space time.


i.e. relativity says they are the same, the equivalence principle does not.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #291 on: August 04, 2019, 03:17:28 PM »

In actual fact, this is true of any so called "scientific fact." It's almost like science has no ability to determine the cause of anything.



Determine, statistically determine, observeable results attribute behaviour and properties.

Pretty sure our 99% confidence is good enough when it acheives the goals at hand.

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #292 on: August 04, 2019, 03:48:12 PM »
And why does that mean it exerts gravity, rather than merely being subject to it?.
How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity? All forces are two-way - an apple exerts the same force on earth as the earth does on the apple.

If you disagree, please state the laws of motion that you subscribe to or that you think that flat earthers subscribe to?

*

rabinoz

  • 22575
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #293 on: August 04, 2019, 03:57:11 PM »
But don't "both" mass/energies curve space time and are following the curved space time?
In other words these mass/energies are "technically" inseparable. 
This combined with the non-linearity of the equations makes closed solutions for GR so far impossible except for special cases such as the Schwarzschild metric.
Yes, under relativity.
But the equivalence principle is only the latter part.
It leaves the hypothetical possibility of something else bending spacetime.

i.e. relativity says they are the same, the equivalence principle does not.
But that still leaves flat earthers as "cherry-picking" the bits of Einstein that they think fits their narrative but I guess that's what they do!

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12993
  • You keep using that word.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #294 on: August 04, 2019, 04:11:03 PM »
Rab stop derailing
Come play a game of Werepenguin Two-Night Stand!

https://werepenguin.space/index.php?topic=57.0

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #295 on: August 04, 2019, 04:31:14 PM »
How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity? All forces are two-way - an apple exerts the same force on earth as the earth does on the apple.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #296 on: August 04, 2019, 04:35:29 PM »
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #297 on: August 04, 2019, 04:36:37 PM »
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Which has been confirmed by taking samples of the stars, and is why all elements possess the same traits as each other.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #298 on: August 04, 2019, 04:38:40 PM »
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Which has been confirmed by taking samples of the stars, and is why all elements possess the same traits as each other.
There are of course other ways to analyze matter without having a sample in hand.

But actually current theory is stars make heavy elements. There are heavy elements on earth. None have been found to be different.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2019, 04:42:30 PM by sokarul »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #299 on: August 04, 2019, 04:41:57 PM »
The building blocks of matter are known. The matter from celestial objects is no different than the matter of earth.
Which has been confirmed by taking samples of the stars, and is why all elements possess the same traits as each other.
There are of course other ways to analyze matter without having a sample in hand.
And of course confirming that the sole matter present elsewhere can be done just by assuming the local framework.