https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

So
Quote
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

Except that the acceleration due to gravity is easily measured and is not 'Universal' everywhere on the Earth's surface. The reason for these small but perfectly measurable differences is predicted by Newton's law of gravitation but not by the UA. Increases or decreases in height affect the radius to the centre of a spherical Earth and local fluctuations in the density and thickness of the Earth's crust determine the effect of mass. There are other factors (see the link 1 below). In UA such factors would not have any effect indeed the UA theory should predict acceleration to be exactly equal everywhere in the world. Data to support Newtonian gravitational theory is readily available (link 2).

1. http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-1.htm

2. New Scientist:
Quote
Mount Nevado HuascarĂ¡n in Peru has the lowest gravitational acceleration, at 9.7639 m/s2, while the highest is at the surface of the Arctic Ocean, at 9.8337 m/s2.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/

Again, the key here is that fluctuations of +/-0.1 m/s2 are easily measurable using the most basic of kit found in any classroom. Light gate timers, meter sticks, that sort of thing. So if you don't believe NASA or New Scientist or the hundreds of other institutions who measure such data and who's errors are way below the statistically significant limit, go and do the experiment yourself.

In any event, I would say that the non-uniform value for acceleration due to gravity is one of the easiest ways to argue that FE theory is inadequate as a model. Again, any FE's who have data to the contrary and who can describe their methods and the apparatus used, please post here. I would be glad to repeat the experiment to verify or refute.


Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2018, 02:05:25 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

Please ensure you've read through the wiki. While I might not agree that this is in any way an answer, you'd do best to address what they provide. If they provide an answer on the wiki and you ignore it, you won't get anywhere with discussions in other locations in the fora.

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2018, 02:11:10 PM »

In any event, I would say that the non-uniform value for acceleration due to gravity is one of the easiest ways to argue that FE theory is inadequate as a model. Again, any FE's who have data to the contrary and who can describe their methods and the apparatus used, please post here. I would be glad to repeat the experiment to verify or refute.

this is answered in the wiki.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2018, 02:50:41 PM »
Look, your link sent me to a single sentence! I'm not being funny but anyone can make up words and claim that they represent an actual phenomena. Without any actual data this statement is simply that, a statement, made by a person (unknown). Do you not see that?

Quote
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Again, we must establish some boundaries for what is allowed into the debate. Otherwise the debate becomes meaningless. If the wiki is to be valued it must link to the data and the studies that establish the theory, otherwise YOU must do that here. Otherwise it is not a theory, it is a 'Hypothesis'. There is a huge difference.

It is not reasonable to expect someone to go looking for a phenomena so unusual and without reference points that it only appears on other flat earth boards. That is a red flag right there. If the wiki cannot elaborate in any way how celestial gravity works in comparison to Newtonian celestial gravity then why should any reader expect that the information exists elsewhere. Please can we stick to tested provable Physics with up to date data to back it up.

Curious squirrel. I have searched the internet, I am 5 pages into Google and can't find a single reference to a study of celestial gravitation. Could whoever wrote the wiki (the gatekeeper of such information?) please update the wiki with some links. Otherwise I respectfully suggest that this case is closed wrt UA. 

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2018, 03:05:59 PM »
Look, your link sent me to a single sentence! I'm not being funny but anyone can make up words and claim that they represent an actual phenomena. Without any actual data this statement is simply that, a statement, made by a person (unknown). Do you not see that?

Quote
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Again, we must establish some boundaries for what is allowed into the debate. Otherwise the debate becomes meaningless. If the wiki is to be valued it must link to the data and the studies that establish the theory, otherwise YOU must do that here. Otherwise it is not a theory, it is a 'Hypothesis'. There is a huge difference.

It is not reasonable to expect someone to go looking for a phenomena so unusual and without reference points that it only appears on other flat earth boards. That is a red flag right there. If the wiki cannot elaborate in any way how celestial gravity works in comparison to Newtonian celestial gravity then why should any reader expect that the information exists elsewhere. Please can we stick to tested provable Physics with up to date data to back it up.

Curious squirrel. I have searched the internet, I am 5 pages into Google and can't find a single reference to a study of celestial gravitation. Could whoever wrote the wiki (the gatekeeper of such information?) please update the wiki with some links. Otherwise I respectfully suggest that this case is closed wrt UA.
If you check my post history I haven't referred to FE as a theory in a LONG time, because FE IS a hypothesis in the scientific sense. Most holes are 'patched' with things like this. The studies you can't find on celestial gravitation? There aren't any. For all intents and purposes it's an answer given to explain the phenomena that has been observed. Although some will debate whether the phenomena is even real, and there ARE a few other explanations for said phenomena. FE proponents would likely point to their lack of funding as to why there is nothing that has been done/published to verify this effect.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2018, 03:11:10 PM »
I have a puzzle about celestial gravitation. If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms2, then so most the moon and stars and sun, otherwise there would be a crash.

Yet celestial gravitation is invoked to explain the different observed accelerations. In that case, why don't the heavens crash down anyway?

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2018, 03:14:55 PM »
Quote
The studies you can't find on celestial gravitation? There aren't any. For all intents and purposes it's an answer given to explain the phenomena that has been observed.

Well my point is that when people who have an exhaustively tested theory that matches all observations and experimental data. That IS a theory.
To come along and attempt to overthrow such a theory one might expect an even bigger body of evidence with even greater statistical certainty around the data. To NOT EVEN HAVE DATA in a foundational part of the theory is unforgivable. Until UA can be argued with ANY DATA at all it should remain a belief, a posit a musing. It should not have its own personal place on a preeminent FE website who's function is to try an educate people that the RE model is wrong. The two theories are not even in the same ballpark.

Just a question, but why do you DISbelieve the data and the evidence that DOES exist for the RE model?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2018, 03:25:47 PM »
long paragraphs about topics that have been covered repeatedly, while not asking a question in FE Q&A

I see you still haven't paid attention to any of the warnings, read the wiki/FAQ, or learned how to use the search function. Moving this to FED in the event anyone wants to debate it.

This is not a FE Q&A post. I will give you one last warning, then it is a short ban to give you time to maybe familiarize yourself with the aforementioned.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2018, 03:38:37 PM by junker »

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2018, 03:50:25 PM »
Quote
The studies you can't find on celestial gravitation? There aren't any. For all intents and purposes it's an answer given to explain the phenomena that has been observed.

Well my point is that when people who have an exhaustively tested theory that matches all observations and experimental data. That IS a theory.
To come along and attempt to overthrow such a theory one might expect an even bigger body of evidence with even greater statistical certainty around the data. To NOT EVEN HAVE DATA in a foundational part of the theory is unforgivable. Until UA can be argued with ANY DATA at all it should remain a belief, a posit a musing. It should not have its own personal place on a preeminent FE website who's function is to try an educate people that the RE model is wrong. The two theories are not even in the same ballpark.

Just a question, but why do you DISbelieve the data and the evidence that DOES exist for the RE model?
I hope you haven't somehow come under the impression I believe in the FE hypothesis as anything more than an interesting thought experiment. You asked a question that had an already provided answer in the wiki. I do my best to assist with such threads when they show up in Q&A as a service to our hosts, the Flat Earth Society. As I said originally, you not thinking it's very strong, does not stop it from being the provided answer.

As for the rest, the general answer for the FE side, would be because they haven't checked the data themselves. If they step off a chair, they see the ground rise up to meet them. Evidence of the UA. This empirical evidence proves that gravity as modern science presents it cannot exist. So they must seek other reasons for certain phenomena. Thus, Celestial Gravitation. But without funding they cannot do anything to more thoroughly confirm the hypothesis. So it sits as being one of a number of potential solutions to the problem of gravimetric anomalies (and the tides). It just happens to be the one espoused within this sites wiki.

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2018, 03:56:43 PM »
celestial gravition is a force acting upon earth from the heavenly bodies, similar to what RE would call gravity.  its is a very small force, that increases as you increase elevation on earth (closer to celestial bodies).  it has a negative affect against the forces of UA.  this is why an objects weight would be less at the top of mount everest than at sea level.

and before you go on an ask how celestial gravitation works....well, we dont know.  the same as RE dont know how gravity works.  it can be measured/calculated but how it works is unknown, so not that big of leap that CG wouldnt be fully understood either, but it is observed.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2018, 09:50:46 AM »
Quote
empirical evidence proves that gravity as modern science presents it cannot exist

This is simply a lie. I am sorry but there are few theories that exist that have been as thoroughly tested and confirmed as Newton's Law of gravitation. It is a force of attraction that exists between all MASS. The attraction increases as the product of the two masses and reduces as the square of the distance between them. As such this theory predicts that the effect of stars on the Earth is virtually zero whereas the effect of local altitude fluctuations on Earth are significant and match the predictions made by the theory. The UA has no formula and no data and should not even be considered as it simply cannot be considered alongside Newton's law of gravitation. Science has a theory that works in every situation and UA has no theory, no data and absolutely no place in the debate until its absolutely contrary assertions have some evidence behind them. FE and UA theory are together presented in a scientific light. As such they must obey the rules of the scientific method. The price of admission is hard data.

It seems to me that what FE attempts to make the theories fit the conclusion, but without data. What RE theory did was analyse data in order to form theories and finally a conclusion. That is the correct way round.

Quote
not that big of leap that CG wouldn't be fully understood either, but it is observed

BUT IT ISN'T OBSERVED....IT JUST ISN'T! As evidenced by the TOTAL LACK OF DATA.

Whereas I, or indeed any careful person with some scientific skills CAN ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF GRAVITATION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

The famous Schiehallion experiment involved measuring the deviation of a plumb line placed next to the mountain Schiehallion in Perthshire (I used to live there). The deviation gives an instant indication of the evident force between masses and the numbers are in line with the aforementioned equation. Only when you can do such a direct observational experiment can you say something is 'observed'.

The reason gravity is less on top of a mountain is for this reason, not Celestial Gravitation which is yet to be detected and has no mechanism to explain it.

Guys, while you refuse to use the scientific method in your arguments you cannot co-opt its language, form and structure as if it is your own. I have comprehensively shown that there is no case to answer in this matter and as such will not be returning to this thread. I am very willing to engage in 'debate' but only when the most basic norms of establishing fact and fiction are adhered to. I engage in these debates so that the baseless assertions of FE theory are challenged in a manner that illustrates the difference between the scientific method and pure speculation. I do not say 'pure speculation' as an insult. I say it as an absolute fact in the case of celestial gravitation as pertains to UA. Without data or direct measurement that is all you have.

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2018, 10:41:43 AM »
Of course we have direct measurement.  The accelleration (undistinguishable from gravity) is more at sea level than higher up on mountains.  This is a fact and observed many times. 
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2018, 11:21:07 AM »
Of course we have direct measurement.  The accelleration (undistinguishable from gravity) is more at sea level than higher up on mountains.  This is a fact and observed many times.

As I already stated, this is a function of the inverse square law. The force of attraction reduces as the square of the distance. This is Newtonian gravitation and has been measured. The size of the reduction agrees with the formula.

You are proposing the reason is Celestial gravitation without showing measurements or observation of this affect. To cite 'observed' you need an independant demonstration similar to the Schiehallion experiment for Newtonian gravitation. Note, Celestial gravitation must be substantial if it is affecting the result for gravity on Earth, so show me the data!

Not that it is my job to design an experiment to furnish data but one might start by setting up measurement stations in different countries where fluctuations are observed. One might then study the orientation of the stellar objects above and calculate the mean distance to the nearest and thus most influential (assuming CG proposes a link with distance). As the stars move in the sky one could plot the relationship between mean distance and gravity on Earth. If the stars are the source one might also consider other features such as mass.....hmmm this is beginning to sound familiar. If a relationship exists (i.e. straight line through the origin of a graph) bingo!

Now such a theory would also have to explain why the gravity at a particular location DOESN'T CHANGE while the configuration of stars above does, since that IS what we would see. Curious that, isn't it. How could one explain such an anomaly? The theory you propose does not stand up to the barest scrutiny. It is insulting that so little effort is put in and yet you make your statements with such conviction.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 11:24:06 AM by lookatmooninUKthenAUS »

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2018, 11:35:51 AM »
Of course we have direct measurement.  The accelleration (undistinguishable from gravity) is more at sea level than higher up on mountains.  This is a fact and observed many times.

As I already stated, this is a function of the inverse square law. The force of attraction reduces as the square of the distance. This is Newtonian gravitation and has been measured. The size of the reduction agrees with the formula.

You are proposing the reason is Celestial gravitation without showing measurements or observation of this affect. To cite 'observed' you need an independant demonstration similar to the Schiehallion experiment for Newtonian gravitation. Note, Celestial gravitation must be substantial if it is affecting the result for gravity on Earth, so show me the data!

Not that it is my job to design an experiment to furnish data but one might start by setting up measurement stations in different countries where fluctuations are observed. One might then study the orientation of the stellar objects above and calculate the mean distance to the nearest and thus most influential (assuming CG proposes a link with distance). As the stars move in the sky one could plot the relationship between mean distance and gravity on Earth. If the stars are the source one might also consider other features such as mass.....hmmm this is beginning to sound familiar. If a relationship exists (i.e. straight line through the origin of a graph) bingo!

Now such a theory would also have to explain why the gravity at a particular location DOESN'T CHANGE while the configuration of stars above does, since that IS what we would see. Curious that, isn't it. How could one explain such an anomaly? The theory you propose does not stand up to the barest scrutiny. It is insulting that so little effort is put in and yet you make your statements with such conviction.

you sure are confident about gravity without even knowing how gravity works, interesting.

the effect of celestial gravitation is rather easy to observe.  first off gravity = accelleration as defined by Einstein.  are you saying Einstein is wrong?  i guess that is probably an important point to clarify, as based on my experience with you so far you tend to argue laws accordingy to you and not science.  so lets clarify that first please.   do you agree with Einstein's equivalence principle?  if so, then we can proceed.

all the experiments you are noting wouldnt be able to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration, so those tests are equally valid to demonstrating the variable accelleration at sea level vs mount everest.  these values are well published (as you know) and no need to go out and remeasure anything.  i think even you should be able to agree with that.

the only difference between the celestial gravitation and RE Gravity as it relates to the variability is that RE Gravity bases their calculation based on the center of gravity outward, CG bases it as distance from the stars.  and the same results.  sea level = 1g, higher elevations <1g. 

as far as position of stars affecting the values???  seriously, you are really just trying to find anything to argue on when nothing is there.  do you really think there is variability in the distribution of starts to affect the values???  look up in the sky next time its dark, stars are pretty consistently spread accross the sky

now try and engage in some intellectual honesty in your posts going forward, you are intentionally confusing discussion points to try and make your side of the argument appear more valid, and its very obvious to everyone reading your posts.  its ok to just say you dont know....i.e. the mechanics of RE Gravity are NOT known (same with CG)...unless you recently discovered how and then i will apologize to you are your forthcoming Nobel prize

full disclosure:  i dont subscribe to the UA model, but my objections have nothing to do with the issues you bring up, all of which are very easily dismissed and explained by the theory and observations.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 11:55:12 AM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2018, 01:36:35 PM »
Quote
you sure are confident about gravity without even knowing how gravity works, interesting.

Quote
the mechanics of RE Gravity are NOT known (same with CG)...unless you recently discovered how and then i will apologize to you are your forthcoming Nobel prize

Look, I am confident that the relationship known as Newton's Law of gravitation accurately describes the relationship between Force, mass and distance. All measurable properties. I have a defined relationship that can be demonstrated in the lab. I am saying that gravity (or acceleration due to gravity, yes the one causes the other) is caused by mass. What you are saying is entirely unclear. You have no defined relationship, just a slogan 'CG'.

By the way, you have the audacity to say I am not engaging with 'intellectual honesty' when you arrive entirely empty handed to the debate with some lame notion of CG being a bit like Newtonian gravity but pointing the other way....give me an actual break!!!

Quote
as far as position of stars affecting the values???  seriously, you are really just trying to find anything to argue on when nothing is there.  do you really think there is variability in the distribution of starts to affect the values???  look up in the sky next time its dark, stars are pretty consistently spread accross the sky

This statement shows that you do not understand the scientific method. It is simply not adequate to say the stars have a significant affect on objects on Earth and yet not explain exactly what properties of the stars cause the affect while also saying there is no point in measuring said effect. What kind of intellectual honesty is that? A scientist would say, 'It is proposed that the stars effect a force on objects on Earth, let us measure these forces under differing circumstances'.

For example, If, as you say, the sky is homogenous then the main factor influencing CG will be the proximity to the stars.

Quote
CG bases it as distance from the stars.  and the same results.  sea level = 1g, higher elevations <1g. 

Why then can we measure differing values for g at various positions of equal altitude? That would suggest that another factor is at play. And yet CG was the only factor suggested to explain the anomaly of varying values of g and YOU claim that CG depends only on altitude.

You see the problem?

Once you propose a new hypothesis such as CG it must be tested and explained in a distinct way from the current theory/model. This is what happened with Special relativity. What you are proposing is that CG explains the variation in values of g and indeed that is what we measure when we measure g. But you cannot simply make such a claim without gathering data to support your case. Especially when the current model that encompasses fluctuations in altitude, crust density etc already agrees very closely with the Newtonian model. I think you are very confused and do not understand the most basic aspects of science. Are you a scientist? I am. I have been a qualified Engineer or Scientist in one way or another for nearly 21 years. What is your background? What actual science have you performed in a professional manner? I would respectfully suggest you back off making silly claims about my 'intellectual honesty' when you appear not to understand the difference between an opinion (CG) and a scientific law (NG).

Now, so far as me 'not understanding the mechanics of gravity'....guilty as charged. I never claimed to understand the fundamental cause of gravity. Nobody does. I merely claim to understand the relationship known as Newton's Law of Gravity and can make mathematical predictions about the properties related therein. If I have ever claimed more than this, please quote me. We await a unified theory of everything to join up the theories we have thus far.

Now I am trying to keep this thread about the science. I think anyone reading these threads who understands logic and how it pertains to science will see that. You appear to have no background in Science and little to no understanding of the scientific method. If you did you would understand the criticisms I have made above (and in previous posts). If my posts 'confuse' you (or others) might I suggest it is because you do not fully get the complexity of science needed to explain and justify a proper valid theory.

As they say, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Proper, valid scientific theories are much rarer and must be defended against all who would attempt to misuse or misrepresent them. That is why I am on the forum. That is why I fundamentally disagree with your points.

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2018, 02:29:08 PM »
I am saying that gravity (or acceleration due to gravity, yes the one causes the other) is caused by mass. What you are saying is entirely unclear.

what you are saying is not correct.   an observer cannot tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.  not acceleration due to gravity and no. not one causing the other.  Gravity IS acceleration.  its the main building block of general relativity.  You either accept this as true and can debate UA, or not.  no point going any further if you cannot accept the equivalence principle as a basis for the discussion.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2018, 03:52:06 PM »
Look, if you really want to get into it we would have to move to Einstein's model of space-time. I figured it would be better to keep it simple.

Semantics aside, how can UA account for the varying values of g across the Earth while it is possible to find values for g at equal altitudes that differ. The theory you lay out cannot account for such measurements. That is a significant problem fro the theory. That is where we should keep our attention.

Since space-time came up though. UA makes no prediction of gravitational waves. Einsteins general theory makes no mention of UA. They can't both be right. Indeed, the presence of UA suggests another new gravitational force must be incorporated into the universe. If it is a gravitational force (between masses) then Einsteins theory is either wrong or deficient. Good luck trying to argue that! Especially given the recent detection of gravitational waves. Or is that all a big conspiracy as well?


Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2018, 04:14:30 PM »
Look, if you really want to get into it we would have to move to Einstein's model of space-time. I figured it would be better to keep it simple.

Semantics aside, how can UA account for the varying values of g across the Earth while it is possible to find values for g at equal altitudes that differ. The theory you lay out cannot account for such measurements. That is a significant problem fro the theory. That is where we should keep our attention.

Since space-time came up though. UA makes no prediction of gravitational waves. Einsteins general theory makes no mention of UA. They can't both be right. Indeed, the presence of UA suggests another new gravitational force must be incorporated into the universe. If it is a gravitational force (between masses) then Einsteins theory is either wrong or deficient. Good luck trying to argue that! Especially given the recent detection of gravitational waves. Or is that all a big conspiracy as well?

well actually you are the one that is misquoting and/or misunderstanding Einstein.  Einstein is the one that said gravity is the same as acceleration for the observer within the object (elevator/rocket/earth).  only an outside observer could tell if it was from gravity and not being accelerated.  well we don't have an outside observer, so thus we cant know if the forces holding us down is gravity (RET) or acceleration (UA).

Im sorry you cant understand this, i have really tried to make it simple.  you dont understand the equivalence principle even though it has been explained.  its the foundation of UA and GR.  i would not suggest we get into more complicated aspects of GR since you cant seem to grasp this one.  it explains how UA is possible.   you still havent discovered the biggest hole in UA yet as you are fixated on the wrong points, but will leave that for another day.

as far as varying "gravity", its already been explained how it works in UA, you have chosen to ignore or not accept it, and thats fine.  and you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right??  kind of another import part you are missing. 
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 04:16:12 PM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2018, 11:51:12 PM »


as far as varying "gravity", its already been explained how it works in UA, you have chosen to ignore or not accept it, and thats fine.  and you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right??  kind of another import part you are missing.

You did not explain it, you made a statement and now call it fact.  Please enlight us as to how acceleration at the top of a mountain would be less than at sea level?
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2018, 12:01:12 AM »


as far as varying "gravity", its already been explained how it works in UA, you have chosen to ignore or not accept it, and thats fine.  and you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right??  kind of another import part you are missing.

You did not explain it, you made a statement and now call it fact.  Please enlight us as to how acceleration at the top of a mountain would be less than at sea level?

actually i have, a couple of times to be exact.  but you are obviously lacking the ability or desire to read before posting.  you are not new here, you should know better.  but in the spirit of giving, below is one my responses.  feel free to read thru them all, its only 1 pages worth:

celestial gravition is a force acting upon earth from the heavenly bodies, similar to what RE would call gravity.  its is a very small force, that increases as you increase elevation on earth (closer to celestial bodies).  it has a negative affect against the forces of UA.  this is why an objects weight would be less at the top of mount everest than at sea level.

and before you go on an ask how celestial gravitation works....well, we dont know.  the same as RE dont know how gravity works.  it can be measured/calculated but how it works is unknown, so not that big of leap that CG wouldnt be fully understood either, but it is observed.

Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time