[ImAnEngineerToo]

Pete, I tend to speak in generalities as if people know what I'm saying and I ought not to do that, apologies.

If there were a "space" and there was space debris, then shooting stars would make sense on a FE and a RE as space stuff could/would have a lateral velocity component such that these objects could burn in the atmosphere. However, RE has gravity and this explains the shallow entry trajectory, while I have yet to hear a convincing theory for how space debris would always enter at a shallow angle on a FE. Maybe sometimes, but all the time? Wouldn't the randomness of direction of the particles in space make the entry angle random?

The fact space as an entity exists, and meteors come from space as widely accepted by the FE community, and the UA theory says that we are accelerating upwards etc., is space debris also accelerating upwards ontop a pillow of dark energy, such that a grain of sand wouldn't split the earth in two as the earth collides with it? How would the shooting star phenomena work?


Jay, I'm assuming the ball is Halley's comet, the rope is "gravity", and you are the sun in this analogy, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're misunderstanding what an orbit is. you should be spinning the ball around you. Imagine if instead of a rope you had a thick column of silly string and the ball was oscillating away and towards you once per revolution. Whenever the ball is close to you, you yank that silly string, giving the ball inertia to rebound back out. When its away, you relax on the silly string, pulling it gently, waiting for its momentum to run out. This is what is happening in space, except gravity is the silly string.

[Pete Svarrior]

However, RE has gravity and this explains the shallow entry trajectory, while I have yet to hear a convincing theory for how space debris would always enter at a shallow angle on a FE. Maybe sometimes, but all the time? Wouldn't the randomness of direction of the particles in space make the entry angle random?

It seems to me that your understanding of the shallow entry trajectory on RE is flawed. It is not the case that all meteoroids enter RE's atmosphere at a shallow angle. Indeed, their angle of incidence is largely "random", as you describe. What seems to confuse you is that the overwhelming majority of meteors (meteoroids that get heated to incandescence and are thus seen as "falling stars") and meteorites (debris that did not fully disintegrate during atmospheric entry) enter the atmosphere at a shallow angle.

In short, the causal link in your mind is reversed. You are able to observe these bodies because they have entered at a shallow angle, and thus were able to lose enough kinetic energy to not fully disintegrate on descent, thus becoming easily observable. This is not to imply that it's unusual for meteoroids to approach the RE atmosphere at a harsh angle. They just won't be around for particularly long if they do.

is space debris also accelerating upwards ontop a pillow of dark energy, such that a grain of sand wouldn't split the earth in two as the earth collides with it?

Yes, Universal Acceleration is universal. Unless the body in question is shielded from it by a sufficiently massive celestial body, it is affected by UA.

How would the shooting star phenomena work?

Pretty much the same way this phenomenon occurs under RET. It's still unclear why you think there would be a significant difference between the two models here.

[TomInAustin]

How would the shooting star phenomena work?

Pretty much the same way this phenomenon occurs under RET. It's still unclear why you think there would be a significant difference between the two models here.

In RE, these objects are orbiting the sun (that is where the speed comes from) and get pulled into the Earth's SOI.  What could cause such a lateral speed in the FE/UA model?  I mean in your opinion of course.

[Pete Svarrior]

In RE, these objects are orbiting the sun (that is where the speed comes from)

Not necessarily.

What could cause such a lateral speed in the FE/UA model?

Much like everything else in the system, the asteroid belt (which you've implied in your previous sentence) appears to orbit the Solar System's centre of gravity. Note that there is no requirement for that centre of gravity to be a celestial object. It could, and usually is, a product of multiple gravitational forces.

[ImAnEngineerToo]

Why then do things orbit in the first place, if not for gravity, since our local gravity has been replaced with UA? Is it another one of my assumptions that FET totally rejects gravity as a force?

[Pete Svarrior]

Is it another one of my assumptions that FET totally rejects gravity as a force?

Without getting too bogged down on terminology and gravity/gravitation, yes. Modern FET uses a combination of UA and gravitation as a proposed explanation for gravity.

[TomInAustin]

In RE, these objects are orbiting the sun (that is where the speed comes from)

Not necessarily.

RE explanation: Unless it's an interstellar object (which we have identified 2 of) it will be in a solar orbit when it gets sucked into the SOI of the Earth. Unless it's a direct hit as you pointed out and comes in near verticle, it will tend to have a crap ton of lateral speed from the solar orbit.  There are many identified objects on elliptical solar orbits that cross ours.  If they are on the downhill side of said orbit they will be really fast.  If they are on the climbing side of the orbit they will be much slower relatively speaking.

FE explanation: ?

What could cause such a lateral speed in the FE/UA model?

Much like everything else in the system, the asteroid belt (which you've implied in your previous sentence) appears to orbit the Solar System's centre of gravity. Note that there is no requirement for that centre of gravity to be a celestial object. It could, and usually is, a product of multiple gravitational forces.

I agree.  While the predominate gravity is solar, the big gas planets tend to mess with orbits.   

[Pete Svarrior]

FE explanation: ?

Replace "Earth's SOI" with "the area [partially] shielded from UA by the Earth"

[iamcpc]

I assume the FE community would generally agree that the firmament is some finite distance above the earth and everything is locally contained.

That assumption is false. Firmament FE'ers are hard to find, and when you do find them, they're usually the type of person that thinks everyone on the Internet is an FBI agent trying to deceive them. Exceptions obviously exist, but you'll find it difficult to find one.

First off I agree that the existence of a firmament is not popular among the various FE models but the existence of a dome is something that is also popular. A dome could very well be considered a physical representation of a biblical firmament. The thing is that there are a couple of firmament FE model followers on these forums who are not the type who think that everyone on the internet is out to get them.

If you call it a dome or if you call it a physical barrier firmament is really moot. The fact remains that, in those models, there is something which would prevent flying chunks of space metals/rocks/ice from hitting the surface of the earth.

[Jay Seneca]

Jay, I'm assuming the ball is Halley's comet, the rope is "gravity", and you are the sun in this analogy, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're misunderstanding what an orbit is. you should be spinning the ball around you. Imagine if instead of a rope you had a thick column of silly string and the ball was oscillating away and towards you once per revolution. Whenever the ball is close to you, you yank that silly string, giving the ball inertia to rebound back out. When its away, you relax on the silly string, pulling it gently, waiting for its momentum to run out. This is what is happening in space, except gravity is the silly string.

I tried that at first. Haley’s comet has a 1/4 Width to length ratio.  That’s more like a U -turn than it is to a circle. And I couldn’t get the ball to do that. 

[Tumeni]

I tried that at first. Haley’s comet has a 1/4 Width to length ratio.  That’s more like a U -turn than it is to a circle. And I couldn’t get the ball to do that.

You couldn't get a ball to behave in the way that was clearly described as an "analogy" ?

[ImAnEngineerToo]

Well, you could change the analogy to throwing the ball in the air, then catching it with your arm straight out, then swinging back to throw it up again. You would get parabolic motion, and then a tight semi circle. Of course in reality a constant force is applied, but it’s the right idea: conservation of energy in rotations.

Or you could probably do it with a yo-yo if you were skilled enough to apply a constant force to the string with the yo-yo oscillating around your hand

Please learn about circular motion and centripetal force, and also please learn conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, and finally please learn how gravity supposedly works before you criticize an analogy used to represent these principles in a rudimentary way.