Acceleration is not constant on Earth

  • 453 Replies
  • 8420 Views
*

sokarul

  • 15980
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #300 on: August 04, 2019, 04:44:39 PM »
Current theory is stars make heavy elements. There are heavy elements on earth. None have been found to be different.

Science is real.

But anyways EM radiation is a property that is used to help identify material thatís far away.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #301 on: August 04, 2019, 05:03:23 PM »
Science is real.
Yes, it is. It is also well aware of what is a postulate and what is observed fact. Insisting postulates have to hold isn't science.

I'll be the first in line to admit I don't have a bloody clue what the Higgs field is all about, and I'm willing to bet that no one else here has much understanding beyond the surface level, so everyone crowding around to make all these firm claims about what is and isn't possible when it comes to mass is just an exercise in pointlessness because you don't know any more than I do. This being possible just doesn't mean much on the grand scale. FET lacks persuasive evidence and that's its achilles heel, not whether random individual aspects are possible under a coherent framework.

*

sokarul

  • 15980
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #302 on: August 04, 2019, 05:17:26 PM »
Science is real.
Yes, it is. It is also well aware of what is a postulate and what is observed fact. Insisting postulates have to hold isn't science.

I'll be the first in line to admit I don't have a bloody clue what the Higgs field is all about, and I'm willing to bet that no one else here has much understanding beyond the surface level, so everyone crowding around to make all these firm claims about what is and isn't possible when it comes to mass is just an exercise in pointlessness because you don't know any more than I do. This being possible just doesn't mean much on the grand scale. FET lacks persuasive evidence and that's its achilles heel, not whether random individual aspects are possible under a coherent framework.

Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #303 on: August 04, 2019, 05:21:53 PM »
Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
The postulates of those theories on the other hand...
Every scientific theory has postulates. They're accepted because they're predictions match what we observe, but that doesn't mean they're not postulates and doesn't preclude the possibility of them being replaced by something better. That's what science is. Pretending like it has to be more than that is what encourages pseudoscience.

*

sokarul

  • 15980
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #304 on: August 04, 2019, 05:42:40 PM »
Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
The postulates of those theories on the other hand...
Every scientific theory has postulates. They're accepted because they're predictions match what we observe, but that doesn't mean they're not postulates and doesn't preclude the possibility of them being replaced by something better. That's what science is. Pretending like it has to be more than that is what encourages pseudoscience.

You are forgetting theories are tested with experiments. Postulates are based on reasoning.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #305 on: August 04, 2019, 05:47:52 PM »
Currently accepted theories are not postulates.
The postulates of those theories on the other hand...
Every scientific theory has postulates. They're accepted because they're predictions match what we observe, but that doesn't mean they're not postulates and doesn't preclude the possibility of them being replaced by something better. That's what science is. Pretending like it has to be more than that is what encourages pseudoscience.
You are forgetting theories are tested with experiments. Postulates are based on reasoning.
So you could almost say... they're accepted because their predictions match what we observe.

*

sokarul

  • 15980
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #306 on: August 04, 2019, 05:51:42 PM »
Which has nothing to do with reason.

Edit: Also they are not accepted because of what we observe. They are expected because of testing. 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2019, 10:19:36 PM by sokarul »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #307 on: August 05, 2019, 02:10:59 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.

I ďsingled outĒ the equivalence principle, because thatís what weíre talking about.  That flat earthers do the same with other parts of science isnít my problem.



Quote
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.

I never said it was ďprovedĒ, although there is plenty of evidence validating the theory.

Einstein didnít just  ďassumeĒ mass/energy was part of his equations.  He hypothesized it and derived his equations from established physical principles plus his own reasoning, including the equivalence principle.

What you really canít do is just swap out mass/energy with something else and keep the rest the same. 

If you want to hypothesize some other property instead of mass, you need to start with the appropriate physical relationships of whatever you think is the cause, and derive entirely new equations from there.

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.


Have you tried moving an apple with a magnet?

*

rabinoz

  • 22151
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #308 on: August 05, 2019, 02:15:50 AM »
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.

Please explain the relevance ::)!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #309 on: August 05, 2019, 02:21:21 AM »
The appeal to magnets is fairly simple:
You can have 2 pieces of iron, they don't stick to each other.
You can have 2 magnets. They do stick to each other.
You can have a magnet and a piece of iron. They do stick to each other.
So magnets (at least to a layman) appear to be able to exert a force onto another material, which is then affected by this force, even though this material doesn't exert the force by itself.

The big problems are that magnetism is a dipole interaction, unlike gravity's unipolar interaction, and when a piece of iron is affected by a magnet, it exerts magnetism as well.

*

rabinoz

  • 22151
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #310 on: August 05, 2019, 03:52:01 AM »
The appeal to magnets is fairly simple:
You can have 2 pieces of iron, they don't stick to each other.
You can have 2 magnets. They do stick to each other.
You can have a magnet and a piece of iron. They do stick to each other.
So magnets (at least to a layman) appear to be able to exert a force onto another material, which is then affected by this force, even though this material doesn't exert the force by itself.

The big problems are that magnetism is a dipole interaction, unlike gravity's unipolar interaction, and when a piece of iron is affected by a magnet, it exerts magnetism as well.
So magnetic attraction is irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #311 on: August 05, 2019, 04:05:20 AM »
So magnetic attraction is irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
Or rather, it demonstrates that your claim that there is no possible way for something to be affected by a force if it does not also exert it, is just wrong. But potayto potahto. Sure, in the magnetism case you get specific interactions you don't with gravity, but that's what's irrelevant. Otherwise it's pretty common for things to be subject to magnetism while also not exerting it, unless they are put in a situation where something makes them exert it. Which ties in pretty neatly to what I've been quoting for a while now.

I never said it was ďprovedĒ, although there is plenty of evidence validating the theory.

Einstein didnít just  ďassumeĒ mass/energy was part of his equations.  He hypothesized it and derived his equations from established physical principles plus his own reasoning, including the equivalence principle.

What you really canít do is just swap out mass/energy with something else and keep the rest the same. 

If you want to hypothesize some other property instead of mass, you need to start with the appropriate physical relationships of whatever you think is the cause, and derive entirely new equations from there.
It's not a matter of assuming mass/energy, it's a matter of assuming it's a universal property of mass, and that in all situations all masses will exert it. If there's a mass out there that doesn't when it's, say, subject to a certain kind of electric field (as I've seen proposed), that in no way invalidates the application of the equations to masses that do.

*

rabinoz

  • 22151
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #312 on: August 05, 2019, 05:02:38 AM »
So magnetic attraction is irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
Or rather, it demonstrates that your claim that there is no possible way for something to be affected by a force if it does not also exert it, is just wrong.
Is it a property of the permanent magnet or of the soft iron?
Even a permanent magnet will not attract brass but it will attract a piece of soft iron so it is clearly a property of both - so am I so very wrong?

But none of that makes magnetic attraction relevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #313 on: August 05, 2019, 05:11:05 AM »

It's not a matter of assuming mass/energy, it's a matter of assuming it's a universal property of mass, and that in all situations all masses will exert it. If there's a mass out there that doesn't when it's, say, subject to a certain kind of electric field (as I've seen proposed), that in no way invalidates the application of the equations to masses that do.

No, because mass is a base unit of measurement.  Thereís no mass out there that isnít mass.

If you want to replace mass with some other property that only some materials exhibit under whatever circumstances, itís no longer mass in the equation.

In the same way that F=ma.  If you change the m to something else, then F is no longer force, but a completely different thing.  And you canít just say it only applies to some mass.

So you could maybe say some matter produces x amount of Janes (lets call this new unit after you) when subjected to an electric field.  Janes arenít mass, they are something else.  So you need to work out what Janes are in relation to our existing units of measurement. 

Then you may be able to derive new field equations based on Janes not mass, but they will be different.

Of course then you lose the two way interaction in Einsteinís field equations where mass affects spacetime and spacetime affects mass.  Now you have Janes affect spacetime, and spacetime affects mass.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #314 on: August 05, 2019, 05:20:02 AM »
But none of that makes magnetic attraction relevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
It does, you're just ignoring it. You've already conceded that something can be subject to a force without exerting it, and now you're just coming up with irrelevancies to distract from that. Grow up. Like, legitimately Rab, this doesn't matter, but the way you carry on you'd think RET would fall tomorrow if the merest possibility was granted.

No, because mass is a base unit of measurement.  Thereís no mass out there that isnít mass.
And that still doesn't make 'has mass' and 'exerts gravity' synonyms. The consequences of a property are not the same as the property itself. Take force in general; explosive forces generate shockwaves depending on the nature of what's around them, but put it in a vacuum and you no longer get them. That doesn't mean the properties of the object change, that it magically stopped having mass or exerting a force, just that nothing in science functions totally independently.
This is pretty universal. If condition A is met, GR as conventionally understood holds. If condition A is not met, it does not. That's literally all this comes down to. Relativity is kinda the perfect thing to apply it too, but it's exactly how relativity and Newton interact as well. Arguing against every little thing just because a FEer was the first to propose it is just silly.

*

rabinoz

  • 22151
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #315 on: August 05, 2019, 05:43:53 AM »
But none of that makes magnetic attraction relevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"
It does, you're just ignoring it. You've already conceded that something can be subject to a force without exerting it,
But that something does not have the properties of gravitation and that is what makes the magnetic analogy irrelevant to the question "How can something be subject to gravity and not exert gravity?"

Quote from: Jane
and now you're just coming up with irrelevancies to distract from that.
No, you are the one coming up with irrelevancies because of your irrelevant analogy.

Quote from: Jane
Grow up. Like, legitimately Rab, this doesn't matter, but the way you carry on you'd think RET would fall tomorrow if the merest possibility was granted.
I agree, it doesn't really matter so why don't you grow up for once and let the matter simply drop - but no you can't ever just let something drop!

Who is carrying on again ;D? I wouldn't be responding unless you kept going on and on and on ;)!
It takes two to Tango, as they say, though I wouldn't Tango with you if my life depended on it.

And no, I do not for a second think, whatever Plat Terra etc might claim, that the Globe might fall tomorrow.

But I'm just wondering if you ever give up with your nitpicking ;D ;D, but I guess not because it's just what you do!

Have fun, Lady Jane!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #316 on: August 05, 2019, 05:46:06 AM »

And that still doesn't make 'has mass' and 'exerts gravity' synonyms. The consequences of a property are not the same as the property itself.

It does in Einsteinís field equations, because he derived them using mass/energy relationships.

Quote
Take force in general; explosive forces generate shockwaves depending on the nature of what's around them, but put it in a vacuum and you no longer get them. That doesn't mean the properties of the object change, that it magically stopped having mass or exerting a force, just that nothing in science functions totally independently.

In atmosphere, some of the force acts on the mass of the atmosphere, accelerating it to cause shockwaves.  In a vacuum, all the force accelerates the mass of whatever youíve exploded.

Force. Mass.  Acceleration. Force. Mass.  Acceleration.

I think youíve just demonstrated  my point. 

Quote
This is pretty universal. If condition A is met, GR as conventionally understood holds. If condition A is not met, it does not. That's literally all this comes down to. Relativity is kinda the perfect thing to apply it too, but it's exactly how relativity and Newton interact as well.

Nope.  You are talking about arbitrarily swapping out one unit of measurement for something else and keeping the equation the same.  Nothing in physics works this way. 

Quote
Arguing against every little thing just because a FEer was the first to propose it is just silly.

Iím arguing with you about what you are saying.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #317 on: August 05, 2019, 05:58:12 AM »
But that something does not have the properties of gravitation
No, gravity and magnetism are not the same thing, do you want a medal? Your claim that something must exert any field it's subjected to, on the other hand, remains nonsense. Like, when you need to totally change the subject that really should be an indication to you that you're arguing for nothing.

It does in Einsteinís field equations, because he derived them using mass/energy relationships.
Again, he did not derive it, he assumed it. You cannot mathematically derive a property of all masses. That's.. that's just not how maths works.

Quote
Nope.  You are talking about arbitrarily swapping out one unit of measurement for something else and keeping the equation the same.  Nothing in physics works this way. 
Uh... what?

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #318 on: August 05, 2019, 06:28:07 AM »

It does in Einstein’s field equations, because he derived them using mass/energy relationships.
Again, he did not derive it, he assumed it.

What?  Of course he derived it.

He started with the assumption (if you like) that Newtonian gravity basically works in most circumstances we can observe.  This is the basic starting point of deriving the field equations.

I don’t pretend to understand all of this, but here’s how to derive the equations yourself, following Einstein’s steps.

http://www.physics.ucc.ie/apeer/PY4112/Einstein.pdf

If you start with some other property other than mass, you’ll get different equations (if it works at all).

Do you really think he just guessed?

Quote
You cannot mathematically derive a property of all masses. That's.. that's just not how maths works.

Are you referring to matter or objects when you say masses?  I’m talking about mass, which IS a fundamental property of matter. (Rest mass, at least).

Quote
Quote
Nope.  You are talking about arbitrarily swapping out one unit of measurement for something else and keeping the equation the same.  Nothing in physics works this way. 
Uh... what?

Spend a bit more time considering what I’m saying.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #319 on: August 05, 2019, 07:12:00 AM »
If you start with some other property other than mass, youíll get different equations (if it works at all).
You are alternating between two completely different claims when one stops working. Don't. It's not a good look for anyone.
Yes, Einstein used mass as a property, I haven't questioned that. There are worlds between that and somehow mathematically proving that all mass exerts gravity in all situations. Again, Einstein did not prove that. He could not prove that, that is not a mathematical claim, there is no even conceivable way for him to prove that. He assumed mass exerted gravity, he did not prove it, because that wasn't what he was trying to do, he just looked at what happened assuming it was the case.
I've done this. Special relativity starts by pointing out what happens at high velocities, when it is postulated that the speed of light is an absolute limit. Then you have the EEP, which basically just states the relationship between force and acceleration, so any force exerted by a gravitational force causes an acceleration equivalent to an acceleration caused by regular kinetic means. So extend SR to the case where it allows for acceleration rather than just velocity, and you've got something you can apply to acceleration caused by gravity. Only then does mass enter into it, as part of the definition he used for gravity.
So, yet again, Einstein did not prove that something having mass and something exerting gravity were the same thing. He just didn't. That was one of the things he took as given. If you're dealing with a mass that does exert gravity, everything is the same, but at no point did Einstein show, or could have even conceivably shown, that that was the only type of mass that exists.
I should not seriously need to keep saying this,e specially when your responses bear no resemblance to anything I am actually saying.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #320 on: August 05, 2019, 07:56:06 AM »
If you start with some other property other than mass, youíll get different equations (if it works at all).
You are alternating between two completely different claims when one stops working. Don't. It's not a good look for anyone.

Which claims am I making that are inconsistent?

Iím trying to address everything you say, which leaves me jumping all over the place.  I notice of course that you only reply to a fraction of what I say, even when they are direct replies to your claims.

Quote
Yes, Einstein used mass as a property, I haven't questioned that. There are worlds between that and somehow mathematically proving that all mass exerts gravity in all situations. Again, Einstein did not prove that. He could not prove that, that is not a mathematical claim, there is no even conceivable way for him to prove that.

You are the one who keeps bringing up proof.  Iíve never said anything is proven.

Quote
He assumed mass exerted gravity, he did not prove it, because that wasn't what he was trying to do, he just looked at what happened assuming it was the case.
I've done this. Special relativity starts by pointing out what happens at high velocities, when it is postulated that the speed of light is an absolute limit. Then you have the EEP, which basically just states the relationship between force and acceleration, so any force exerted by a gravitational force causes an acceleration equivalent to an acceleration caused by regular kinetic means. So extend SR to the case where it allows for acceleration rather than just velocity, and you've got something you can apply to acceleration caused by gravity. Only then does mass enter into it, as part of the definition he used for gravity.
So, yet again, Einstein did not prove that something having mass and something exerting gravity were the same thing. He just didn't.

More about proof, when I do not talk of proof.

Quote
That was one of the things he took as given.

Yes, he took it as a given.  And used that as the fundamental starting point to derive his field equations.

This is my whole point.  Mass, as a basic property is fundamental to Einsteinís field equations. 


Do you still deny that Einstein derived his equations, after I linked how to do it?

Because thatís not a ďgood lookĒ, to use your words.

Quote
If you're dealing with a mass that does exert gravity, everything is the same, but at no point did Einstein show, or could have even conceivably shown, that that was the only type of mass that exists.

And now weíre back into nonsense.  Mass, as a basic unit of measurement, doesnít have ďdifferent typesĒ.  At least, if there are, it would mean overturning physics completely.

Mass, along with distance, time and temperature is a bass unit of measurement.  Talking of different types of mass is like talking about different types of distance.

Quote
I should not seriously need to keep saying this,e specially when your responses bear no resemblance to anything I am actually saying.

Ah, your famous catchphrase.  It doesnít help your arguments.  You donít need to keep saying it.  Itís your choice.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #321 on: August 05, 2019, 08:08:20 AM »
Yes, he took it as a given.  And used that as the fundamental starting point to derive his field equations.

This is my whole point.  Mass, as a basic property is fundamental to Einsteinís field equations. 


Do you still deny that Einstein derived his equations, after I linked how to do it?
What even is your point at this stage? Like, I never denied mass was part of Einstein's equations, and you seriously don't need to tell me how they're derived, but you're either contributing absolutely nothing to the thread, or insisting that FEers can't use a variation on gravity just because Einstein didn't account for it, even when it would never contradict his equations and despite the fact that kind of addition is exactly how relativity would be improved, in theory. Like. What actually is your point?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15399
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #322 on: August 05, 2019, 08:17:59 AM »
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.

Quote
Q: All Mass?
A: We can't know for sure, but so far all evidence points to it applying for all mass. A wide variety of masses have been tested and we are yet to find one which doesn't obey. So we take the simple, rational assumption that it would apply to all masses.
Incorrect. This is not a rational assumption. A rational assumption would be one that makes use of deductive logic. You have made an inductive or empirical assumption, and one which you cannot logically support. Again, no straw man.

Quote
Q: Isn't this against logic, and unprovable by logic?
A: From a purely logical point of view, NOTHING is provable by logic, not even logic, as it relies upon assuming logic works.
Incorrect. Logic is an internally self consistent system which includes deductive logic. Inductive logic cannot be justified however. Again, no straw man.

Quote
So yes, as it isn't nothing, it is not provable by logic.
Q: How does this force act at a distance with no carrier?
A: Why should a force need a carrier? As Explained above, it is a distortion of space-time.
A distortion which is communicated how? Are we to believe its magic? If it needs no carrier, what of the fabled "graviton"? Is this not, like I said before, rewriting geometry so your theory works through use of magic?

Again, no straw man.

Quote

Q: Doesn't that go against the idea that your particular point that we are so special we know about the entire universe based off locally experienced phenomena?
A: No, that was your strawman, designed to make us look arrogant and stupid.
Sure seems like it was yours when you were trying to support making a rational argument, which in fact was actually an inductive one.

I guess if it was a straw man, it did make you look arrogant and stupid. However, it was not. You just don't know what the word rational means.

Quote
Q: Why is it when we use the gravitational model that stems from your beliefs that we end up with a huge number of discrepancies and gravitational anomalies even when describing our own planet?
A: Such as? Are you putting in every single piece of data about our planet?
Such as known gravitational anomalies. These are of course by definition outside the "uncertainty" as you put it.

Quote
Q: I just gave instances of falsification. Can you really say something is falsified if you ignore all results to the contrary of its hypothesis? Would a batter not have a perfect average, if only his hits were recorded?
A: No, you baselessly asserted a falsification, without any justification of it.
Perhaps this is fair. However, the incoherencies and falsifications of your model are well known to any that choose not to turn a blind eye to them.

Quote
And so on.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38052
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #323 on: August 05, 2019, 08:24:46 AM »
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #324 on: August 05, 2019, 08:26:32 AM »
Yes, he took it as a given.  And used that as the fundamental starting point to derive his field equations.

This is my whole point.  Mass, as a basic property is fundamental to Einsteinís field equations. 


Do you still deny that Einstein derived his equations, after I linked how to do it?
What even is your point at this stage?

Just trying to correct your misconceptions.

Quote
Like, I never denied mass was part of Einstein's equations, and you seriously don't need to tell me how they're derived,

LOL.  A moment ago you denied they were derived at all!

Quote
but you're either contributing absolutely nothing to the thread,

Neither are you.

Quote
or insisting that FEers can't use a variation on gravity just because Einstein didn't account for it, even when it would never contradict his equations and despite the fact that kind of addition is exactly how relativity would be improved, in theory.

If you donít use the fundamental property of mass, his equations are not valid.  Substituting another property is a contradiction.  Do you understand this yet?

Quote
Like. What actually is your point?

Trying to help your understanding.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15399
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #325 on: August 05, 2019, 09:01:43 AM »
Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."
Yes, just like everything else, the difference being this is a fundamental force.

Again, how does the electrostatic interaction work?
How does one charge tell another charge to move?
How does it know to make it move just the right amount based upon its charge?

If you want to appeal to the electric field, then how does charge change the electric field?
How does the electric field make a charge move?

With UA, what causes Earth to accelerate?
You have no answers.
With everything you will be able to just keep going down until you get to the answer.
Saying its a fundamental force and hand waving doesn't do either side any favors. The Earth accelerates due to the universal accelerator.

As you likely know, Dark Energy causes the earth to accelerate. And it does so in a much more reasonable way than the magical round earth "dark energy."

Quote
The question is what is the mechanism for gravity: we have answered this.
No, the question is why do things fall.
We have the answer as gravity, a fundamental force observed between any 2 masses.
We even have a step further of explaining it as the curvature of space time.
It has not been observed between any two masses. That is an outright lie.

Also, your two explanations are incoherent. Its not a step forward - its one backwards. Is it a fundamental force? Or is it a pseudoforce?

Why do things fall? They don't. The earth rises to meet them, under UA.

You are trying to bundle up the moving planets in your model which seem to work at a distance squared, and the fact things fall. These are of course two separate phenomena and you have done absolutely nothing to show otherwise.

Quote
On the other hand you have it as Earth magically accelerating upwards for no reason at all, with some variation thrown in for no reason at all.
That isn't one step ahead of us, it is one step behind, especially as an accelerating body is not a fundamental force.
If its a fundamental force, what is its carrier? How can we directly observe it, without presuming its existence?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15399
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #326 on: August 05, 2019, 09:04:45 AM »
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15399
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #327 on: August 05, 2019, 09:09:06 AM »
I feel the need to point out you putting down my supposed straw man which was in reply to the RE straw man, which you then rewrote into a new straw man. Pot, you need to meet kettle. I think you have a lot in common.

Oh Action Jack.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #328 on: August 05, 2019, 09:11:46 AM »
LOL.  A moment ago you denied they were derived at all!
Um, no? Not at all?
Again, my objection is you saying that 'mass exerts a gravitational force' was somehow derived by Einstein. he did not derive that, he took it as a premise. That's what I said. That's what I've been saying a ridiculous number of times. Don't accuse me of not understanding when you aren't grasping that and when you need to outright lie about what I said.

Quote
If you donít use the fundamental property of mass, his equations are not valid.  Substituting another property is a contradiction.  Do you understand this yet?
And his equations are valid when that property of mass does hold, but when it does not, then only the select few that mention mass become invalid. Yep. I agree, I've always agreed, none of that precludes only some masses exerting gravity. So, again, why does that matter?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38052
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #329 on: August 05, 2019, 09:20:25 AM »
RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.
Oh, I'm so sorry for presenting a strawman argument when faced with a strawman argument. Let's see how you knock it down...
Quote
Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Sure sounds like:
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]." Unless you have an actual mechanism, what we are talking about might as well be fairies bending space.
John, are you sure that you should be criticizing RE "magic" when FET seems to rely on many more "magical" phenomena than RET?
It is clear that we rely on far less 'magic.'

We have no dark energy, or dark matter which together account for 95% of your universe. Right there we have significantly less magic. This is ignoring your magic fairy particles.
But you do have a magic dark energy that uniformly accelerates the flat earth and celestial bodies.  You have a magic medium that refracts light the wrong way in order to explain the rising an setting of the celestial bodies.  You have a magic body that comes between the sun and moon to cause lunar eclipses.  Should I go on?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.