[StinkyOne]

I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

[Hmmm]

What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

I might be placing a wrong answer, but maybe it will be interseting for you.

[StinkyOne]

What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

I might be placing a wrong answer, but maybe it will be interseting for you.

So you post a link to some video of the sun rising and you claim it is rising out of a lake or ocean? Give me a break. Are there any serious FEers, or is this site just have a handful of goofs making stuff up. As for your sun video, it is purely light refraction. Honestly, if an incredibly hot ball of plasma was in water, can you even begin to comprehend the amount of steam that would be generated?? Also, having a 32 mile wide object submerge into the ocean would cause massive tsunamis. But hey, lets just make stuff up and call it real.

As for the visual effect, you can create a similar effect by bringing your thumb and pointer finger very close together, but not touching. Do it in a dark room while sitting in front of your computer screen. Helps if your hand is close to your eye when you do it.

[3DGeek]

I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

The FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth - and that this causes tides - but that utterly FAILS to explain why there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day.   One when the moon is overhead - and another when it's nowhere in sight.  RET explains this by the fact that the Earth/Moon system mutually orbits around a "barycenter" point that's not at the center of the Earth - which produces a  centrifugal force on the side of the Earth opposite the Moon...which produces that second tide.

I've yet to see an FET explanation for that...although at least one FE'er claims it can be "found in the Wiki"...which it absolutely cannot.

[juner]

The FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth

Incorrect.

[Curious Squirrel]

The FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth

Incorrect.

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

[juner]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

Yep. When you believe in a fake theory with no basis in fact, it lends itself to everyone just making things up as they go.

Hi there. If you just want to complain, we have a forum dedicated for that. Please don't shit up threads in the upper fora with it, though. Warned.

[Curious Squirrel]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation:  The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.

[juner]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation:  The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.

That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.

While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.

[Curious Squirrel]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation:  The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.

That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.

While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.

Gravity: a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10^-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation
I'm uh, not seeing much of a difference here Junker, other than the Gravity definition goes a touch more 'in depth' as it were. They do appear to be describing the exact same phenomenon.

[juner]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation:  The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.

That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.

While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.

Gravity: a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10^-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation
I'm uh, not seeing much of a difference here Junker, other than the Gravity definition goes a touch more 'in depth' as it were. They do appear to be describing the exact same phenomenon.

Gravitation simply describes attraction/movement to/toward something. You can apply gravity to it, sure, but it is not required.

[Curious Squirrel]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation:  The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.

That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.

While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.

Gravity: a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10^-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation
I'm uh, not seeing much of a difference here Junker, other than the Gravity definition goes a touch more 'in depth' as it were. They do appear to be describing the exact same phenomenon.

Gravitation simply describes attraction/movement to/toward something. You can apply gravity to it, sure, but it is not required.

Gravitation is attraction between objects of mass. Gravity is objects of mass attract each other. Gravitation is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Gravity=Gravitation. For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity. These aren't two separate ideas here. Honestly if you think they are, please explain the difference. What is gravitation? What is gravity? How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?

[juner]

For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity.

False.

What is gravitation?

Already explained in the thread.

What is gravity?

Also already explained.

How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?

They can be, and often are used as words for the same thing. In FET they are not the same thing, as gravity does not exist.

[StinkyOne]

For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity.

False.

What is gravitation?

Already explained in the thread.

What is gravity?

Also already explained.

How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?

They can be, and often are used as words for the same thing. In FET they are not the same thing, as gravity does not exist.

How does celestial gravitation differ from what REers would call gravity. I'm not talking about the supposed constant acceleration of the Earth. (Although, I would love to know how that works, as well.)

[Curious Squirrel]

For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity.

False.

What is gravitation?

Already explained in the thread.

What is gravity?

Also already explained.

How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?

They can be, and often are used as words for the same thing. In FET they are not the same thing, as gravity does not exist.

What an excellent and compelling statement for how they are different. You're right, I've given the definition of both in this thread. Yet you can't seem to explain how they are different, because the definitions sure don't. The FE hypothesis claims gravity doesn't exist, because reasons, but some then posit gravity DOES exist, but we can't call it gravity because reasons. What celestial gravitation describes is gravity, because gravitation is gravity. It's two words for the same force, the definition makes that quite clear. But again, you claim they are in fact different. How? What's the difference? Where have we observed gravitation but not gravity? FE's claim there is no gravity doesn't count. It's a claim with no observable evidence unless you've seen the acceleration of the Earth, which would require a vantage point not on Earth.

[juner]

Yet you can't seem to explain how they are different, because the definitions sure don't.

Incorrect. I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.

[Curious Squirrel]

Yet you can't seem to explain how they are different, because the definitions sure don't.

Incorrect. I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.

I haven't seen you define the difference anywhere, nor even define either term. Both posted definitions (from the same online dictionary) say they are the same thing. If you can in fact explain how they are different, please do so instead of continuing to say that it's explained in the thread. Because I don't see anywhere that the difference is explained, as you certainly haven't other than an unprovable claim that they aren't simply because the FE hypothesis says they aren't.

[Kushagra Kirtiman]

I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

If u need more info please message me I may be wrong but I think gravity is nothing more than centripetal acceralation.Since as go away from earth gravity decreases which should not happen,it should constant as whole but in centripetal acceralation we know that as far u move from earth the acceralation radial decreases since its inversely proportional to the radius of a curved surface.

[StinkyOne]

I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

If u need more info please message me I may be wrong but I think gravity is nothing more than centripetal acceralation.Since as go away from earth gravity decreases which should not happen,it should constant as whole but in centripetal acceralation we know that as far u move from earth the acceralation radial decreases since its inversely proportional to the radius of a curved surface.

I don't need any info. Thank you for the offer. Gravity decreases following the inverse square law. (as it should)
I think you should look further into centripetal acceleration. I think you don't fully under how it is generated.

[3DGeek]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

So you think that's a comprehensive explanation of how there are two tides per day and not one as a simple lunar attraction implies?

I've repeatedly asked this "two tides" question - and every time you've said "False" (not a very helpful reply) or "It's in the Wiki"...and scouring the Wiki turns up no explanation whatever for this.

Now you're telling us that "This is not the same as Gravity" is a satisfying explanation?   Really?  **REALLY??!

That's about the same as "Fairies come along at night and sprinkle fairy dust onto the waves to make a second tide."

You guys are supposed to be zeteticists...which experiment lead you to this conclusion?