[Ghost of V]

The mass of the stars is irrelevant. The Earth is not effected by gravity, so it's really of no consequence.

Here's a rough diagram of how it all works..

[Lemmiwinks]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

[Gulliver]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

As a regular critic of FET, I have to admit that the UA could pass muster when looking at SR and the apparent velocity of the Earth. But it fails in two major ways: 1) GR requires that the earth be effected by gravity since it has ordinary mass, and 2) SR requires that the UA have provided more than a centillion joules to have accelerated the earth to date, a preposterous amount!

[Ghost of V]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

All great questions. I'll have to get back to you later with a response.

[Lemmiwinks]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

As a regular critic of FET, I have to admit that the UA could pass muster when looking at SR and the apparent velocity of the Earth. But it fails in two major ways: 1) GR requires that the earth be effected by gravity since it has ordinary mass, and 2) SR requires that the UA have provided more than a centillion joules to have accelerated the earth to date, a preposterous amount!

Thats just the earth, according to Vaux you also have to add in the mass of a few hundred trillion stars and their planets.

[Lemmiwinks]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

All great questions. I'll have to get back to you later with a response.

Fair enough Vaux

[markjo]

The mass of the stars is irrelevant. The Earth is not effected by gravity, so it's really of no consequence.

  I thought that celestial gravitation was responsible for the tides and for measured variations in g.

[Tom Bishop]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

[Gulliver]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

So what is your point? If you wish to impugn GR then please tell us how the GR's Equivalence Principle still allows FET to explain common "gravity".

[Pete Svarrior]

So what is your point? If you wish to impugn GR then please tell us how the GR's Equivalence Principle still allows FET to explain common "gravity".

"If you disagree with the Bible, how can you believe that killing is wrong? After all, the Bible says that, and you disagree with the Bible. Duh."

Gulliver, please.

[Rama Set]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.

[Gulliver]

So what is your point? If you wish to impugn GR then please tell us how the GR's Equivalence Principle still allows FET to explain common "gravity".

"If you disagree with the Bible, how can you believe that killing is wrong? After all, the Bible says that, and you disagree with the Bible. Duh."

Gulliver, please.

Are you arguing that the proof of the EP stands without the rest of GR? Citation Required.

[Tom Bishop]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.

The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.

[Rama Set]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.

The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.

The curvature of space-time is the physical interpretation of the mathematics of GR.  Whatever is happening, GR is modelling and predicting it accurately and has not been falsified.  It is every bit as verified [sic] as Special Relativity.  Light bending around a star is of course not the only prediction of GR that has been verified; care to address those?

[Pete Svarrior]

Are you arguing that the proof of the EP stands without the rest of GR? Citation Required.

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the two models are equivalent in this regard because your model strictly requires this to be the case. This is entirely in your court, and that's the conclusion you've reached. I'm merely holding you to account on it.

Gulliver, please.

[Gulliver]

Are you arguing that the proof of the EP stands without the rest of GR? Citation Required.

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the two models are equivalent in this regard because your model strictly requires this to be the case. This is entirely in your court, and that's the conclusion you've reached. I'm merely holding you to account on it.

Gulliver, please.

I don't think you're paying attention. Please quote me where I made a conclusion in this matter. RET does not require that the two models are equivalent in this regard. Tom Bishop declared that only SR has been scientifically proven, without citation. I've challenged him to explain his point.

[Tom Bishop]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.

The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.

The curvature of space-time is the physical interpretation of the mathematics of GR.  Whatever is happening, GR is modelling and predicting it accurately and has not been falsified.  It is every bit as verified [sic] as Special Relativity.  Light bending around a star is of course not the only prediction of GR that has been verified; care to address those?

GR has not been verified. The last I checked there was no Grand Unified Theory. In Quantum Mechanics there is the theory of the graviton, which proposes that a subatomic messenger particle is the mechanism behind gravity, which is in direct contradiction to General Relativity which says that gravity is due to the bending of space. The square root attraction in the QM theory precisely the same as what GR predicts.

Watching a ball drop does not tell us why or how it dropped. It is a big deal in physics that the phenomenon of gravity remains unexplained and mysterious.

I don't think you're paying attention. Please quote me where I made a conclusion in this matter. RET does not require that the two models are equivalent in this regard. Tom Bishop declared that only SR has been scientifically proven, without citation. I've challenged him to explain his point.

Frames of reference experiments have put moving frames under controlled conditions to conclude that time works differently within different frames. An experiment that can move is within our capability.

There is no experiment, however, which can test or detect the bending of space. The concept of bending space is untested and assumed.

[Rama Set]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.

The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.

The curvature of space-time is the physical interpretation of the mathematics of GR.  Whatever is happening, GR is modelling and predicting it accurately and has not been falsified.  It is every bit as verified [sic] as Special Relativity.  Light bending around a star is of course not the only prediction of GR that has been verified; care to address those?

GR has not been verified.

No scientific theory is verified only falsified. So far GR has passed every test.

The last I checked there was no Grand Unified Theory.

That is completely irrelevant. A GUT says nothing of the success of GR except on the quantum scale.

In Quantum Mechanics there is the theory of the graviton, which proposes that a subatomic messenger particle is the mechanism behind gravity, which is in direct contradiction to General Relativity which says that gravity is due to the bending of space.[ /quote]

Please demonstrate that the bending of school ace does not create a quantum field. That there is evidence for gravitational radiation would seem to indicate that it does but no one knows for sure. Again, this says nothing about the success of GR on its own merits.

The square root attraction in the QM theory precisely the same as what GR predicts.

So two theories are converging on the same answer?  That sounds promising for both!

Watching a ball drop does not tell us why or how it dropped. It is a big deal in physics that the phenomenon of gravity remains unexplained and mysterious.

GR tells us exactly how objects attract. I know of no scientific theory that answers "why" something happens.

I don't think you're paying attention. Please quote me where I made a conclusion in this matter. RET does not require that the two models are equivalent in this regard. Tom Bishop declared that only SR has been scientifically proven, without citation. I've challenged him to explain his point.

Frames of reference experiments have put moving frames under controlled conditions to conclude that time works differently within different frames. An experiment that can move is within our capability.

There is no experiment, however, which can test or detect the bending of space. The concept of bending space is untested and assumed.

This is not true. Please research experimental evidence for relativistic frame-dragging. Also the study of the CMB a has allowed for measurement of the curvature of space.

[Lemmiwinks]

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

General Relativity is just as scientifically demonstrated as Special. I am not understanding your point. It sounds more like since you don't have a neat-o alternative theory for why time dilates at high speed but do have a "theory" about gravity, then one is ironclad and the other has not been "scientifically demonstrated"

[Tom Bishop]

There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.

There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.