[Tom Bishop]

Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level.  So, how is it that you can tell the difference?  What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?

Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity.

This isn't going to be another pedantic gravity vs gravitation gotcha, is it?  You know full well that the terms gravity and gravitation are used interchangeably, even by physicists discussing GR.  Even the article that you cited uses the term gravity even though it's obviously referring to gravitation.

So, just to make you happy, how does one tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation when the EP specifically says that you can't?

It's not an argument of the difference between gravity and gravitation. In the scenario with the upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling within the rocket is accelerating upwards and moving through space. This does not happen in the static version on earth. There is a physical difference.

The version of gravity where bodies fall down is not physically equivalent to a scenario where the room accelerates up. There are experiments and indications that this classic version of gravity is incorrect. Gravity must simulate the physics of a scenario where the room accelerates upwards because there are different kinds of experiments showing this physical reality.

Curved space is used to simulate the upwardly accelerating rocket scenario. See this section titled "Why Is Spacetime Curved?" of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by Princeton University prof John Richard Gott III:

A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”

One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of-reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)

Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!

Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.

Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea.

You can also see this section from Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton:

Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

Also, this quote on p.65 of Relativity Visualized by Lewis Carroll Epstein:

Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up!

[markjo]

It's not an argument of the difference between gravity and gravitation. In the scenario with the upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling within the rocket is accelerating upwards and moving through space. This does not happen in the static version on earth. There is a physical difference.

I'm not sure if you are understanding the question posed by the EP.  If you are in a rocket and don't know anything about where you're, then how can you tell if you're in space accelerating at 1g or if you are being influenced by a 1g gravitational field (curvature of space-time) when the results of any experiment would be the same either way?

[Tom Bishop]

Considering that curved space is used to create an illusion to explain the physical reality of the other scenario it is really more of an absurd philosophical question.

It would be like asking "How do you know whether the woman you love wasn't abducted and replaced last month by a human clone of her body and her mind and all of her defects by an advanced alien species to the point that there is nothing you could do to tell the difference?"

[markjo]

Yes, I think that you're finally getting it.  The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet.  Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.

[Dual1ty]

Yes, I think that you're finally getting it.  The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet.  Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.

Actually the EP precedes the notion of a "curved space-time on a round earth" by a lot. Even when Einstein started thinking about it there was no notion of a "curved space-time on a round earth".

Translation of "curved space-time on a round earth" from the insane cult of the mathematical globe Earth to real physics: Ether dilation on a flat Earth.

Have a good Sun-worshipping-day!

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, I think that you're finally getting it.  The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet.  Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.

Sure, I can tell the difference between a reality which has direct physical evidence for it and someone screaming that the physical evidence is an illusion derived from processes in an unseen dimension. One of the explanations has direct physical evidence and the other does not.

Recall from the above Princeton University Prof quote from John Richard Gott III that curved space was needed because an upwardly accelerating surface didn't make sense on a round earth -

"Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved."

When the justification rests on it being the only way to make sense of it in your model, the mere fact that you need to do this is a proof against the model.

[markjo]

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

[Tom Bishop]

If you are watching the ball drop from an external viewpoint then it's a second-hand view. If you strap a Go Pro on the ball before you drop it then the view from the Go Pro is more of a first-hand view. In the first-hand view the earth is accelerating upwards.

Likewise, if you get up on a chair and walk off the edge and observe the surface of the earth carefully, you will find that from a first hand view the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

If you take a water balloon and drop it you will find that it changes shape in freefall to its weightless form.

http://gravityprobe.org/GravityProbe%20Links/Galileo-Undone-Mar-10-2020.pdf



Consider:

If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms within the balloon "down", how could the water atoms within the balloon experience weightlessness and travel just as easily upwards or downwards within the container of the balloon without resistance from "gravity"?

In a Zero-G airplane flight that uses free-fall to create weightlessness within the plane it has been seen that someone with long hair can have their hair freely flow up and down without resistance, as if the hair was in a weightless environment.



If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms "down", how could the atoms in the hair flow freely up and down without resistance in free-fall? Surely if she were to mold her hair into a certain shape it should  not flow up and down freely without resistance if there were a phenomenon pulling all atoms downwards.

In a situation where you are losing a game tug-of-war with an elephant and are being pulled along, any time you pull against the rope it creates resistance against the direction you are being pulled in. If the atoms in the hair are all being pulled down towards the earth they should not be allowed to float freely up and down without resistance. Yet water, hair, and various types of materials act weightless in a zero-g freefall flight.

All of this and more is easy evidence that the true physical nature of gravity is that of an upwardly accelerating earth.

[Dual1ty]

If you are watching the ball drop from an external viewpoint then it's a second-hand view. If you strap a Go Pro on the ball before you drop it then the view from the Go Pro is more of a first-hand view. In the first-hand view the earth is accelerating upwards.

Likewise, if you get up on a chair and walk off the edge and observe the surface of the earth carefully, you will find that from a first hand view the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

If you take a water balloon and drop it you will find that it changes shape in freefall to its weightless form.

http://gravityprobe.org/GravityProbe%20Links/Galileo-Undone-Mar-10-2020.pdf



Consider:

If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms within the balloon "down", how could the water atoms within the balloon experience weightlessness and travel just as easily upwards or downwards within the container of the balloon without resistance from "gravity"?

In a Zero-G airplane flight that uses free-fall to create weightlessness within the plane it has been seen that someone with long hair can have their hair freely flow up and down without resistance, as if the hair was in a weightless environment.



If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms "down", how could the atoms in the hair flow freely up and down without resistance in free-fall? Surely if she were to mold her hair into a certain shape it should  not flow up and down freely without resistance if there were a phenomenon pulling all atoms downwards.

In a situation where you are losing a game tug-of-war with an elephant and are being pulled along, any time you pull against the rope it creates resistance against the direction you are being pulled in. If the atoms in the hair are all being pulled down towards the earth they should not be allowed to float freely up and down without resistance. Yet water, hair, and various types of materials act weightless in a zero-g freefall flight.

All of this and more is easy evidence that the true physical nature of gravity is that of an upwardly accelerating earth.

Wow, I have to reply because the dishonesty you're displaying is unbelievable. Who's talking about "pulling phenomena"? You know as well as I do that the mainstream left that behind 100 years ago and now says that gravity isn't a force. So why are you being so dishonest?

[Tom Bishop]

Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

[markjo]

Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

I also said to put aside the mechanism.  I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence.  Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense.  However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.

[AATW]

Did you try clicking on the [1] link after that quote?

Ah. My bad, as you lot say. I did try that but it just took me further down the Wiki page. I didn't notice that it was referencing a paper.

But literally the paragraph after the bit you quoted the paper goes on to say:

Lacking any deeper understanding of this question, most physicists prefer to accept equivalence as the fundamental way in which the universe operates. Other physicists maintain that the origin of the principle of equivalence is one of the deepest, unsolved mystery of modern physics, and deserves an explanation

My emphasis. Which is what I was saying. These dudes are saying this is a big mystery, but they also say that most physicists don't really agree with them and just take the view that it's just how the universe works.

I guess it could be possible that the universe is filled with phenomena where Flat Earth Theory appears to be correct, but numerous illusions really make the earth round. At some point you will have to look in the mirror, however.

You'll be unsurprised to hear I see this the exact other way around. The earth has been observed to be spherical. You claim it's flat but then hypothesise mechanisms for why observations better fit a spherical earth.

UA is your replacement for gravity, for example, but the model of gravity doesn't just explain why things fall, it explains the shape of the earth and the shape of all the other heavenly bodies we observe to be spheres. It also explains the orbit of the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth.

You hypothesise mechanisms for why the sun sets and why it appears a consistent angular size. RE doesn't need mechanisms for those things, it's how you'd expect things to be on a spherical rotating earth with a distant sun.
I've mentioned numerous times the way the sun would have to move in your monopole model. The diameter of the circle the sun makes has to constantly change and the speed has to change with it to maintain a consistent day/night cycle. And every 6 months it has to flip between the diameter increasing and decreasing. I'd suggest the RE model is significantly simpler and explains all this far more elegantly.

[Tom Bishop]

Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

I also said to put aside the mechanism.  I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence.  Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense.  However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.

I think you mean to argue by Occam's Razor or something. Even limited to solely that with no further investigation, there should be at least as much evidence that you are being pushed upwards than there is that the ball is pulled downwards. While you drop the ball you feel a pressure of the Earth pushing against your feet.

The ball falling towards the earth may be  the simplest explanation based on what you were told as a child, and sure, I'll give you that one. That falling phenomenon is so dear that most people refuse to believe that modern gravity is anything but that. There is never any coherent argument here in favor of the earth pushing us upwards through curved space as the cause of gravity, despite that this is the current model.

This notion is so absurd that no one here ever tries arguing it directly. The best we get are absurdist arguments like "You can't tell for certain that the evidence is not REALLY an illusion from an unseen DIMENSION"... which is basically what the "Equivalence Principle" is: an attempt to put an absurd argument about illusions and processes in unseen dimensions on the same level of direct physical evidence.

[Dual1ty]

Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

I also said to put aside the mechanism.  I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence.  Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense.  However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.

I think you mean to argue by Occam's Razor or something. Even limited to solely that with no further investigation, there should be at least as much evidence that you are being pushed upwards than there is that the ball is pulled downwards. While you drop the ball you feel a pressure of the Earth pushing against your feet.

The ball falling towards the earth may be  the simplest explanation based on what you were told as a child, and sure, I'll give you that one. That falling phenomenon is so dear that most people refuse to believe that modern gravity is anything but that. There is never any coherent argument here in favor of the earth pushing us upwards through curved space as the cause of gravity, despite that this is the current model.

This notion is so absurd that no one here ever tries arguing it directly. The best we get are absurdist arguments like "You can't tell for certain that the evidence is not REALLY an illusion from an unseen DIMENSION"... which is basically what the "Equivalence Principle" is: an attempt to put an absurd argument about illusions and processes in unseen dimensions on the same level of direct physical evidence.

No, the current model is not that the Earth is pushing you upwards - the current model is that the Earth is preventing you from falling through it and this results in the illusion that it's pushing you upwards. Even mainstream people get that wrong or don't explain it correctly.

The irony is that the official model is a lot closer to the truth than your Rocketship Earth model where the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and the planets are all accelerating upwards together for unknown reasons. All you have to do is replace Globe Earth & "Spacetime" with Flat Earth & Ether, and congrats - you went from the fantasy land of mathematical models to reality and real physics.

[Tom Bishop]

No, the current model is not that the Earth is pushing you upwards - the current model is that the Earth is preventing you from falling through it and this results in the illusion that it's pushing you upwards. Even mainstream people get that wrong or don't explain it correctly.

So if different mainstream sources are getting it wrong, how do you know which is the correct explanation?

In Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time:

In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

It's not too hard to find the same description elsewhere, such as in this MIT class:

https://lenhoang.wordpress.com/2015/11/

Step by step, I got the students to almost figure out by themselves the most brilliant thoughts of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. The climax was when I repeatedly asked them: “If gravity is not a force — which is what Einstein claimed — why do apples fall?” It took them a while. They proposed different ideas. Mostly wrong. But that’s okay. Einstein himself got mostly wrong ideas. But, slowly, they got warmer. And warmer. Until, all of sudden, one student said half convincingly: “the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!

[AATW]

Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time

Right. And he also references the moon landing as having happened. And says:
"The equator is an example of a great circle on the globe"
He also says that "Einstein's idea explained Galileo's result that all objects fall at the same rate", so that contradicts the notion that this is some great mystery for physics.

“the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!

The bit you bolded is, in the original article, a link to one of his YouTube videos. In the video he talks about astronauts in the ISS orbiting the earth.
At the end of that video he talks about how the earth is round and the upwards acceleration doesn't mean the earth is expanding. He then links to another of his videos where he explains that. To be honest I'm not sure I understood the other video but it's something to do with it accelerating through spacetime and not space. I think.

Anyway, the point is neither of these articles are advocating a Flat Earth.

[Dual1ty]

No, the current model is not that the Earth is pushing you upwards - the current model is that the Earth is preventing you from falling through it and this results in the illusion that it's pushing you upwards. Even mainstream people get that wrong or don't explain it correctly.

So if different mainstream sources are getting it wrong, how do you know which is the correct explanation?

In Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time:

In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

It's not too hard to find the same description elsewhere, such as in this MIT class:

https://lenhoang.wordpress.com/2015/11/

Step by step, I got the students to almost figure out by themselves the most brilliant thoughts of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. The climax was when I repeatedly asked them: “If gravity is not a force — which is what Einstein claimed — why do apples fall?” It took them a while. They proposed different ideas. Mostly wrong. But that’s okay. Einstein himself got mostly wrong ideas. But, slowly, they got warmer. And warmer. Until, all of sudden, one student said half convincingly: “the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!

A ball Earth pushing upwards in all directions means an expanding non-expanding ball, which is self-evidently nonsensical. An oxymoron. I don't care if some of these retards invoke Spacetime, The Mathemagical Medium to explain that. REAL physics uses space and time as measures, because that's what they are. They're NOT a physical medium.

One of those quotes says "the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory.". It's not "knocking you off", it's stopping you from continuing to freefall. However you will experience that as a push because you already have your freefalling momentum. To say that it's "knocking you off" or that the "the ground is accelerating upwards" is ridiculous.

[Dual1ty]

Eric finally made a video regarding what I call Rocketship Earth.



Of course, he doesn't care about the physics or the cause of gravity, he only cares about singing Kumbaya. But he's right about the assumptions that rocketship-earthers have to make, isn't he?

Although he's missing the most blatant one which I already mentioned, which is that they have to assume that the Earth is constantly being pushed by an unknown force.

[Tom Bishop]

Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time

Right. And he also references the moon landing as having happened. And says:
"The equator is an example of a great circle on the globe"
He also says that "Einstein's idea explained Galileo's result that all objects fall at the same rate", so that contradicts the notion that this is some great mystery for physics.

“the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!

The bit you bolded is, in the original article, a link to one of his YouTube videos. In the video he talks about astronauts in the ISS orbiting the earth.
At the end of that video he talks about how the earth is round and the upwards acceleration doesn't mean the earth is expanding. He then links to another of his videos where he explains that. To be honest I'm not sure I understood the other video but it's something to do with it accelerating through spacetime and not space. I think.

Anyway, the point is neither of these articles are advocating a Flat Earth.

It seems that you have wasted your time with a poor effort at deflection. I did not claim that they were advocating a Flat Earth. It was posted to show what the RE belief on gravity is.

A ball Earth pushing upwards in all directions means an expanding non-expanding ball, which is self-evidently nonsensical. An oxymoron. I don't care if some of these retards invoke Spacetime, The Mathemagical Medium to explain that. REAL physics uses space and time as measures, because that's what they are. They're NOT a physical medium.

One of those quotes says "the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory.". It's not "knocking you off", it's stopping you from continuing to freefall. However you will experience that as a push because you already have your freefalling momentum. To say that it's "knocking you off" or that the "the ground is accelerating upwards" is ridiculous.

Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.

Of course, he doesn't care about the physics or the cause of gravity, he only cares about singing Kumbaya. But he's right about the assumptions that rocketship-earthers have to make, isn't he?

Eric Dubey's density theory for gravity doesn't explain the laboratory equivalence principle experiments at all.

How would density make things weightless while in freefall?

Why would bodies of different masses and different inertial resistances to movement fall at the same rate?

Why would light behave as if the ceiling of a room was accelerating upwards with the doppler effect?

There are physical experiments which tell us that the physical earth is accelerating upwards. One must accept it or imagine a scenario to simulate it. He does not attempt to answer these questions and denies physical reality. Asking why the stars don't hit the earth is a question of deflection which does not erase the experimental evidence, and does not attempt answer the query. This is why the density gravity theory is currently poor.

[Dual1ty]

A ball Earth pushing upwards in all directions means an expanding non-expanding ball, which is self-evidently nonsensical. An oxymoron. I don't care if some of these retards invoke Spacetime, The Mathemagical Medium to explain that. REAL physics uses space and time as measures, because that's what they are. They're NOT a physical medium.

One of those quotes says "the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory.". It's not "knocking you off", it's stopping you from continuing to freefall. However you will experience that as a push because you already have your freefalling momentum. To say that it's "knocking you off" or that the "the ground is accelerating upwards" is ridiculous.

Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.

Yeah, right... Plenty of people in the mainstream don't say that. It's not like everyone in the mainstream agrees with that, you know? But I don't think the powers that be care about those disagreements as long as people aren't figuring out the truth.

Of course, he doesn't care about the physics or the cause of gravity, he only cares about singing Kumbaya. But he's right about the assumptions that rocketship-earthers have to make, isn't he?

Eric Dubey's density theory for gravity doesn't explain the laboratory equivalence principle experiments at all.

How would density make things weightless while in freefall?

Why would bodies of different masses and different inertial resistances to movement fall at the same rate?

Why would light behave as if the ceiling of a room was accelerating upwards with the doppler effect?

There are physical experiments which tell us that the physical earth is accelerating upwards. One must accept it or imagine a scenario to simulate it. He does not attempt to answer these questions and denies physical reality. Asking why the stars don't hit the earth is a question of deflection which does not erase the experimental evidence, and does not attempt answer the query. This is why the density gravity theory is currently poor.

That's not what I'm talking about. Those questions are besides the point and they are for Eric or people who are advocates for so-called RDD, not me. But he doesn't care, he's a yoga instructor and a "FE/Veganism guru".

But then again, you don't care about the Ether either, which is why you have to talk about RDD instead?