[smoran]

Hi All,

I'm new here.. So I'll begin in saying that I come to this forum with much curiosity. I Never disqualify any theory as i believe that a lot of theories even if might not be true to the full, always have some facts that are true and might be the next ground breaking science.

I Find the F.E Theory quite fascinating although  I'm yet to be convinced that it is the actual reality we live in.
I do however love hearing of different approaches to life as we know (Or think we know) them.

My question to the F.E. community is regarding the Earth's gravity.
I I Understood correctly, the assumption is that the gravity is actually an illusion and actually Earth is being pushed by a dark matter at the rate of 9.8 meters per second hence generating the illusion of everything being pushed down.
I Can understand the physics of such concept and Can understand that the movement will not be felt as we spend our entire existence here and our bodies are used to it.

So This theory of gravity actually fits quite nicely with the fact that dropping two objects of different size and weight actually drop down at the same rate..

But these are things that i fail to match to the F.E. Gravity Theory:

• Please elaborate on the concept of a parachute... If someone uses a parachute to drop from a plain,  what actually should happen is that the fall would remain the same speed regardless of the fraction and "push" force   generated on the parachute.
  I Thought maybe the concept here might be the the inertia of earth is pushing air up thus making the parachute to be pushed up  making the illusion of "falling" slowly.. but i'm not quite convinced with this theory.
  
• Please elaborate on the concept of two objects tied one to another with a rope while the rope is fixed to something in the middle. if indded the gravity was the movement of earth up, still the two object will create the illusion of falling down in parallel lines yet the reality is that both object will be pulled to one another by the rope which physically proves that there is a force pulling the object down rather than being pushed towards the objects.
  

Thanks for your time
Can't wait to hear your suggestions.

Regards,
Segev

[Pete Svarrior]

Hi Segev,

I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the Equivalence Principle (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle) - it should provide at least an intuitive understanding of why these situations would be identical.

Please elaborate on the concept of a parachute... If someone uses a parachute to drop from a plain,  what actually should happen is that the fall would remain the same speed regardless of the fraction and "push" force   generated on the parachute.
I Thought maybe the concept here might be the the inertia of earth is pushing air up thus making the parachute to be pushed up  making the illusion of "falling" slowly.. but i'm not quite convinced with this theory

The air does indeed accelerate together with the Earth, being pushed up by it. The effect of the parachute is generated by the air resistance or drag.

Please elaborate on the concept of two objects tied one to another with a rope while the rope is fixed to something in the middle. if indded the gravity was the movement of earth up, still the two object will create the illusion of falling down in parallel lines yet the reality is that both object will be pulled to one another by the rope which physically proves that there is a force pulling the object down rather than being pushed towards the objects.

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Perhaps you could elaborate further so we can try and find the error? The observed effect would be identical both in a gravity and a universal acceleration scenario.

[CableDawg]

The air does indeed accelerate together with the Earth, being pushed up by it. The effect of the parachute is generated by the air resistance or drag.

[/quote]

Let's look at this from the bigger picture down to the smaller.

Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.

Once a person is free from the surface of the earth, through whatever means (but we'll go with an air plane here), they are free from the effects of gravity and are actually waiting for the earth to catch up to them, since there supposedly no gravity and only the effect of the earth rushing up.

Now, if a person jumps out of an air plane, they would not actually be falling but would remain stationary (at the same altitude of the plane they jumped from) waiting for the earth to catch them because, as we've seen, gravity is an effect of the earth rushing up.

Now let's look at the parachute question/answer.

First, since gravity doesn't exist off the surface of the earth, there would be no need for a parachute.

Second, even if the person who jumped from the plane started falling in a zero gravity environment, the parachute would cause a drag situation.  How does the drag provided by the parachute account for the force of the earth, rushing up to and hitting a person at 21 miles per hour?

A two ton (1,814 kg) vehicle moving at 21 miles per hour can do considerable damage to the human body, what about a multi million ton earth?

The following is based upon physics within the realm of reality.

An average person weighing 80 kg, falling from 5 meters, at a velocity of 9.8 meters per second, hits a surface with an average force of 39,200 Newtons.

A two ton (1,814 kg) vehicle traveling at 9.8 meters per second, through 5 meters of distance (taken to be analogous to falling), hits a surface with an average force of 1,778,081,620 Newtons.

The Earth, weighing 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg traveling at 9.8 meters per second (also taken to be analogous to falling), through a distance of 5 meters, hits a surface with an average force of 2.9262799999999995e+27 Newtons.


What would actually happen to that unfortunate soul, hanging from the end of a parachute, when the Earth strikes him?  Imagine all that force being applied to an area of a few square inches (the feet) and being transferred upward through the body by all the various bones from the feet leading up to the skull.  Do you think the person would feel it before they died?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.

...

No, it is the effect of the earth accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s². Speed/velocity is different from acceleration. Pretty much everything you say after this is wrong due to this mistake. Especially the stuff about the earth hitting people with a huge amount of force.

All the situations that have been brought up (parachuting, jumping out of a plane, the two objects hanging from a rope) would be affected in the exact same way under gravity and Universal Acceleration. Like SexWarrior said, look up the equivalence principle.

However! That doesn't mean that Universal Acceleration is a perfect replacement for the theory of gravity. The strength of gravity isn't completely constant across the globe. You can measure slight changes in gravity if you climb up a mountain or travel a significant distance north/south. This can't be explained by Universal Acceleration.

[Charming Anarchist]

I I Understood correctly, the assumption is that the gravity is actually an illusion

It is both illusion and fiction.  There is no force of gravity. 

and actually Earth is being pushed by a dark matter at the rate of 9.8 meters per second hence generating the illusion of everything being pushed down.

Incorrect.  The earth is not moving nor is it being pusshed up at 9.8 meters per second. 




The apple falls down to the ground because it is more dense than air. 
The apple floats on water because it is less dense than water but more dense than air. 

Less dense matter rises to the top of more dense matter because there is nowhere else to go. 

[TotesNotReptilian]

The apple falls down to the ground because it is more dense than air. 
The apple floats on water because it is less dense than water but more dense than air. 

This is true! You are referring to the concept of buoyancy.

Less dense matter rises to the top of more dense matter because there is nowhere else to go. 

Why not sideways? or down? or diagonally? Why is "up" preferred?

Buoyancy only works when there is a pressure gradient in a fluid. Pressure gradients are caused by an outside force or an accelerating reference frame (like gravity, or Universal Acceleration). Gravity/UA causes a downward pressure gradient in air and water. (Basically, this means that pressure decreases as you increase your altitude.) Since the pressure below the object is greater than the pressure above the object, light objects will rise against the gradient (up).

TL;DR: Buoyancy would not work without gravity, UA, or some other somewhat constant downward force. Density would not cause objects to rise or fall.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Shalom and welcome to the forum OP.

[CableDawg]

Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.

...

No, it is the effect of the earth accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s². Speed/velocity is different from acceleration. Pretty much everything you say after this is wrong due to this mistake. Especially the stuff about the earth hitting people with a huge amount of force.

All the situations that have been brought up (parachuting, jumping out of a plane, the two objects hanging from a rope) would be affected in the exact same way under gravity and Universal Acceleration. Like SexWarrior said, look up the equivalence principle.

However! That doesn't mean that Universal Acceleration is a perfect replacement for the theory of gravity. The strength of gravity isn't completely constant across the globe. You can measure slight changes in gravity if you climb up a mountain or travel a significant distance north/south. This can't be explained by Universal Acceleration.

How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s?  How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?

But let's get back to the discussion at hand.

The equivalence principal.  Your little wiki has a neat little picture of a guy in a rocket and a guy in a room.  Both of which are representative of a respective terra firma for each individual, demonstrating the equivalence principle.

As you will notice from my original comment I was discussing an individual who has jumped out of a plane.  This person is no longer attached to any type of terra firma and is therefore outside the equivalence principle.  He is no longer attached to the plane (analogous to the neat little rocket) and he is no longer attached to the earth (analogous to the neat little box) but is, in fact between the two unaffected by any acceleration.  He is, by FE definition of constant acceleration gravity, in zero gravity and waiting for the earth to catch up to him.

[juner]

The atmoplane is affected by acceleration. It is accelerating with us, all of those nitrogen and oxygen atoms. It is literally no different than gravity in RET.

Also, the earth has presumably been accelerating since its formation. It is traveling at a velocity that is some percentage of c.

[BCGreenwood]

The atmoplane is affected by acceleration. It is accelerating with us, all of those nitrogen and oxygen atoms. It is literally no different than gravity in RET.

Also, the earth has presumably been accelerating since its formation. It is traveling at a velocity that is some percentage of c.

Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.

But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).

Not that I'm doubting you understand it of course. You certainly seem to have given that impression and I'm not calling you a liar.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Gravity on the FE is supposedly the effect of the earth rushing upward at some constant speed, keeping everything pinned to the ground.

...

No, it is the effect of the earth accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s². Speed/velocity is different from acceleration. Pretty much everything you say after this is wrong due to this mistake. Especially the stuff about the earth hitting people with a huge amount of force.

All the situations that have been brought up (parachuting, jumping out of a plane, the two objects hanging from a rope) would be affected in the exact same way under gravity and Universal Acceleration. Like SexWarrior said, look up the equivalence principle.

However! That doesn't mean that Universal Acceleration is a perfect replacement for the theory of gravity. The strength of gravity isn't completely constant across the globe. You can measure slight changes in gravity if you climb up a mountain or travel a significant distance north/south. This can't be explained by Universal Acceleration.

How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s?  How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?

But let's get back to the discussion at hand.

The equivalence principal.  Your little wiki has a neat little picture of a guy in a rocket and a guy in a room.  Both of which are representative of a respective terra firma for each individual, demonstrating the equivalence principle.

As you will notice from my original comment I was discussing an individual who has jumped out of a plane.  This person is no longer attached to any type of terra firma and is therefore outside the equivalence principle.  He is no longer attached to the plane (analogous to the neat little rocket) and he is no longer attached to the earth (analogous to the neat little box) but is, in fact between the two unaffected by any acceleration.  He is, by FE definition of constant acceleration gravity, in zero gravity and waiting for the earth to catch up to him.

First of all, it's 9.8 m/s². Not 9.8 m/s. I normally dislike being pedantic, but this repeated mistake makes me think you don't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration.

The equivalence principle does not depend on whether someone is touching "terra firma" or not.

First, let's look at an easy example: Bob and Jill are standing on the edge of a cliff. Bob, steps off the cliff! Bob why??? You have so much to live for!!! What happens next according to each theory (gravity, UA)?

1. Gravity: The downward force of gravity is no longer balanced by the upward force exerted by Bob's legs on the earth. Bob accelerates downwards at 9.8 m/s², to Jill's horror.
2. Universal Acceleration: Bob stops accelerating upwards with the earth, but the earth and Jill don't stop accelerating upwards. From the viewpoint of the horrified Jill, Bob is accelerating downwards away from her at 9.8m/s²(even though it's actually her accelerating upwards away from him).

Either way, Bob ends up as a splotch on the rocks below.

The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.

The point of the equivalence principle is that it is impossible for someone on the earth to tell the difference between a uniform force field and a uniform acceleration. Relative to someone standing on the earth, objects behave in exactly the same way. By the way, the equivalence principle isn't a flat-earth concept. It was originated by Einstein. I wouldn't trust the wiki on this site for an explanation of it. Look it up on wikipedia or somewhere else.

[rabinoz]

The atmoplane is affected by acceleration. It is accelerating with us, all of those nitrogen and oxygen atoms. It is literally no different than gravity in RET.

Also, the earth has presumably been accelerating since its formation. It is traveling at a velocity that is some percentage of c.

So how does UA explain the observed variation in "g" with altitude and latitude?
Also slight variations in gravitation are observed near massive ore bodies and this assists in mineral prospecting. How does UA explain this?

Celestial Gravitation
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.

If this is accepted, however do the rotating celestial bodies explain the above non-time variable gravity variations (not anomalies!)?

Also what is the explanation of of these (tiny) celestial objects having gravitational effects on bodies on the earth, yet the tremendously more massive earth has no effect?

Yes, I know! The answers are not in "the Wiki" nor in the "SacredTexts" so you have no idea.

[TotesNotReptilian]

How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s?  How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?

How fast is the earth moving through space relative to what? Velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference against which we can measure it.

Lot's of people on this forum seem to toss around the theory of relativity without a decent understanding of it. Contrary to popular belief, the earth can happily accelerate for all eternity, assuming:
1. Something continues to push it.
2. There is no friction in the medium it is travelling through. Or if it isn't travelling through a medium period.

[TotesNotReptilian]

If this is accepted, however do the rotating celestial bodies explain the above non-time variable gravity variations (not anomalies!)?

This is an excellent point! However, the wording was a bit strange. I would like to try to clarify it, if you don't mind:

We can detect small variations in the strength of gravity. "Celestial Gravitation" is the explanation for this in the UA model.

1. These variations DO NOT change with time.
2. The positions of the heavenly bodies DO change with time.

Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that Celestial Gravitation can account for these variations.

[rabinoz]

How long has this earth been constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s?  How fast is this earth actually moving through space after constantly accelerating for all of this time?

How fast is the earth moving through space relative to what? Velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference against which we can measure it.

Lot's of people on this forum seem to toss around the theory of relativity without a decent understanding of it. Contrary to popular belief, the earth can happily accelerate for all eternity, assuming:
1. Something continues to push it.
2. There is no friction in the medium it is travelling through. Or if it isn't travelling through a medium period.

You say "assuming:
1. Something continues to push it."
Would I be right in assuming that this "Something" must itself be "pushing on something" (action and reaction, and all that jazz - I didn't see any about SR or GR exempting us from that requirement). 

So, please carefully explain what FOR that "something" is in.

Also, so much seems to be made of the aether (or is it ether or both?) making a "bow wave" (yes, I know it sounds ridiculous to me). Is this aether in its own FOR or the FOR of the "Something" we are being pushed by.

What I am really getting at is the question of whether or not there is some inertial FOR out there - and be care how you answer because here be dragons.

[rabinoz]

The point of the equivalence principle is that it is impossible for someone on the earth to tell the difference between a uniform force field and a uniform acceleration. Relative to someone standing on the earth, objects behave in exactly the same way. By the way, the equivalence principle isn't a flat-earth concept. It was originated by Einstein. I wouldn't trust the wiki on this site for an explanation of it. Look it up on wikipedia or somewhere else.

Without claiming to having studied in detail all you said, I agree with your explanation of UA.
The bit "uniform force field and a uniform acceleration" you included about EP is telling, because on earth we do not have uniform acceleration.

The simple variation with altitude and latitude can hardly been denied (" the Wiki" calls them anomalies), but
a more questionable variation for Flat Earth followers is the variation in the direction of acceleration as we move from place to place.

A fair bit of detail on this is given in Gravity: from weightlessness to curvature. This is one of the "somewhere elses".

[TotesNotReptilian]

Would I be right in assuming that this "Something" must itself be "pushing on something" (action and reaction, and all that jazz - I didn't see any about SR or GR exempting us from that requirement). 

Yep! Conservation of momentum and all that jazz.

So, please carefully explain what FOR that "something" is in.

It depends. In the case of rocket-like propulsion, the frame of reference would be the earth.

If it is being pushed by something that isn't being accelerated along with the earth, then the relevant reference frame would probably be the outside "something". As the velocity of the earth relative to the "something" approaches c, it would be increasingly difficult for the "something" to continue pushing the earth.

The most plausible scenario would be some theoretical constant stream of massless particles that constantly accelerates the earth. These particles would have to interact with something in the earth, but be virtually undetectable to us (since no one has ever discovered a constant stream of upward particles). This would also probably imply some source of infinite energy... ok, this is getting a bit over my pay grade now. </ramble>

Also, so much seems to be made of the aether (or is it ether or both?) making a "bow wave" (yes, I know it sounds ridiculous to me). Is this aether in its own FOR or the FOR of the "Something" we are being pushed by.

Who knows. Every flat-earther seems to have a different definition of aether/ether. Generally, the concept of ether implies an absolute reference frame, which would make this whole situation... difficult to explain. To say the least.

To be clear, I am not advocating the existence of UA. Dragons indeed.

The bit "uniform force field and a uniform acceleration" you included about EP is telling, because on earth we do not have uniform acceleration.

Indeed. How unfortunate for the theory of UA. Poor thing, it had so much potential...

[rabinoz]

Would I be right in assuming that this "Something" must itself be "pushing on something" (action and reaction, and all that jazz - I didn't see any about SR or GR exempting us from that requirement). 

Yep! Conservation of momentum and all that jazz.

So, please carefully explain what FOR that "something" is in.

It depends. In the case of rocket-like propulsion, the frame of reference would be the earth.

If it is being pushed by something that isn't being accelerated along with the earth, then the relevant reference frame would probably be the outside "something". As the velocity of the earth relative to the "something" approaches c, it would be increasingly difficult for the "something" to continue pushing the earth.

The most plausible scenario would be some theoretical constant stream of massless particles that constantly accelerates the earth. These particles would have to interact with something in the earth, but be virtually undetectable to us (since no one has ever discovered a constant stream of upward particles). This would also probably imply some source of infinite energy... ok, this is getting a bit over my pay grade now. </ramble>

Also, so much seems to be made of the aether (or is it ether or both?) making a "bow wave" (yes, I know it sounds ridiculous to me). Is this aether in its own FOR or the FOR of the "Something" we are being pushed by.

Who knows. Every flat-earther seems to have a different definition of aether/ether. Generally, the concept of ether implies an absolute reference frame, which would make this whole situation... difficult to explain. To say the least.

To be clear, I am not advocating the existence of UA. Dragons indeed.

The bit "uniform force field and a uniform acceleration" you included about EP is telling, because on earth we do not have uniform acceleration.

Indeed. How unfortunate for the theory of UA. Poor thing, it had so much potential...

Those dragons creep in when you start to look at time dilation and find that for only a few tens of years to elapse on the accelerating earth an enormous time must elapse in this inertial FOR - if there is one! . Have a look at this Relativistic Star Ship Calculator

Since I don't accept the idea of UA, or a Flat Earth at all, I'd better leave it for the Society's experts to handle.

Give me plain simple gravitation, simply to explain how it works, very difficult to explain why it works, but then if you really delve deeply into, are the fundamental reasons for the other forces of nature any easier to explain? A bit over the pay grade for me too, being more of an ex-engineer.

[CableDawg]

The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.
[/quote]

What is causing the plane to accelerate upwards with the earth?

Why does this force not apply to Bob when he steps off the plane?

[TotesNotReptilian]

The situation with the plane is exactly analogous to this. The plane is accelerating upwards with the earth. Relative to the plane and the earth, Bob accelerates downwards as soon as he steps out of the plane.

What is causing the plane to accelerate upwards with the earth?

Good question! Lift. Stick your hand out the car window while driving fast. Palm facing down, fingers together. Now rotate your hand so that your palm is slightly facing forwards. Did you feel your hand pushing upwards? Congratulations, your hand just generated lift like an airplane wing!

Why does this force not apply to Bob when he steps off the plane?

Bob doesn't have wings.