Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2017, 09:31:03 PM »
Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.

Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.

You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.

At least Tom takes the time to try to explain (well, mostly).

I have done my research and there is absolutely nothing on the Wiki, in the other writings or on the forums that are searchable that explains ANY of the serious problems with FE gravity.

Not...one...single...one.

Here is the sum total of what the Wiki says:

Quote
The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.

Then there is the page: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration ...which doesn't explain how gravity decreases at the equator.

Then we have "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."

It says it explains them - but doesn't actually explain them!

If you're going to carry on claiming that there is - then either point them out - or NOBODY is going to believe you.  Not just a vague "in there someplace" - point an exact post out to us...just once.   You always use this hand-wavey approach and it just gets tiresome to those who come here to understand what you guys are trying to tell the world.

I don't think you have *ANYWHERE* a fully explained theory of how FE explains gravity - variable over altitude, variable by latitude and explaining the tides.

You're continual "look for it" or "false!" posts are a waste of bandwidth - the kind of thing you'd be the first to ban someone over.   If you're not going to present a reference, a discussion, or an explanation of any kind - then why bother posting?

Your responses are FAR less useful than those of many people you ban.  I recommend you give yourself a three day ban to consider this.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2017, 09:45:20 PM »
All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
False.

LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Maybe that is what the person I was responding to should have said, then...

While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons.
I disagree. It is quite a stretch.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2017, 03:39:12 AM »
Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.

Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.

You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.

Couldn't agree more. What is the point of replying "FALSE" to things? There is no point. Anyone reading already knows he disagrees. The only reason a discussion forum exists, is to provide an infrastructure for...drum roll...discussion. Replying "FALSE" without further elaboration, is the opposite of discussion. It also makes him sound like a petulant child, even if he might be the most intelligent and emotionally balanced human alive.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2017, 05:41:03 AM »
All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
False.

LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Maybe that is what the person I was responding to should have said, then...

While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons.
I disagree. It is quite a stretch.
He DID say that. Explicitly in the first part of his post. But hey look, you're just going to pick mine apart too into bite size little pieces that you can state simple things about.
Why do you say it's a stretch? It's the same relationship as photons to electromagnetic waves. I think there's others, but that's the major one, as photons are on a similar scale to where we expect to find gravitions. Why do you think it's a terrible stretch to say it proves gravitons? How big of a stretch do you think it is?
You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute. The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2017, 04:48:55 PM »
All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
False.

LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Maybe that is what the person I was responding to should have said, then...

While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons.
I disagree. It is quite a stretch.
He DID say that. Explicitly in the first part of his post. But hey look, you're just going to pick mine apart too into bite size little pieces that you can state simple things about.
Why do you say it's a stretch? It's the same relationship as photons to electromagnetic waves. I think there's others, but that's the major one, as photons are on a similar scale to where we expect to find gravitions. Why do you think it's a terrible stretch to say it proves gravitons? How big of a stretch do you think it is?
You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute. The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.

The "graviton" think (which both junker and Tom Bishop have invoked in debate) is a good one for them because they can point to the name of something that science has yet to actually find.

Sadly, because they don't know enough math and science, they don't understand that "Wave/Particle Duality" means that we don't need to observe the particle directly to know that it's there AND that the wave alone is sufficient to prove whatever they think a graviton would prove.   The fact of gravity wave proves that gravity works the way we think it does.  F=G.m1.m2/(d.d) - that equation works very well, and even without the evidence of gravity waves, it explains 100% of the effects we see on Earth.   FET's explanation for these effects (as you can see from my compendium of all of the discussions on the Wiki) merely says things like "the pull of the objects in the sky accounts for these effect"...but it doesn't.   The same stars are overhead all of the earth, the sum of their attractions must result in some results - but those results can't explain a perfectly circular decrease in gravity around the equator because (for example) the density of stars over the two hemispheres is observationally identical.  If their explanation were correct then the most "sky gravity" would be over the arctic - and the gravity there would be LESS than at the equator...not more.

So carping on about the lack of direct evidence for gravitons (which has precisely ZERO effect on our understanding of RET physics) is just a pathetic distraction to cover for the fact that there is no viable theory of FET "gravity" (or "universal acceleration") that comes remotely close to explaining what we actually see.

Junker is employing standard FE'er tactics of trying to distract people by picking apart a tiny, tiny nit of RET in the hope that we won't notice the gigantic CHASM of errors, inconsistencies and flat out impossibilities that make up FET.

So junker... is this just "FALSE" - or can you actually explain FET "gravity" to us without saying "Look in the Wiki"...because I just did that and produced the results for everyone to read.

If you're just going to say it's not your job to find the explanations in the forum - then you might as well stop posting here because you're adding precisely nothing to the conversation - and that's often your criteria for banning people from posting.   A "self-ban" would be more honest here.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2017, 06:21:18 PM »
You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.
Incorrect. If you are struggling with basic comprehension, I don't think I can help you. But I would be happy to try.

I have done my research and there is absolutely nothing on the Wiki, in the other writings or on the forums that are searchable that explains ANY of the serious problems with FE gravity.

Not...one...single...one.
Either you are terrible at searching, or you just decided to start lying. It is fine if you don't want to make an attempt, just be honest about it.

If you're going to carry on claiming that there is - then either point them out - or NOBODY is going to believe you. 
I don't care if you believe me. Once you learn how to search, you will find it for yourself. Acting like a child throwing a tantrum isn't going to encourage me to help you.

You always use this hand-wavey approach and it just gets tiresome to those who come here to understand what you guys are trying to tell the world.
I am sorry that giving direct instructions comes off as "hand-wavey" to you. You seem to think you are entitled to something. I assure you that you are not.

I don't think you have *ANYWHERE* a fully explained theory of how FE explains gravity - variable over altitude, variable by latitude and explaining the tides.
I suppose it is good I never claimed otherwise, then.

You're continual "look for it" or "false!" posts are a waste of bandwidth
I am sorry if you think facts are a waste of bandwidth.

- the kind of thing you'd be the first to ban someone over.
Literally and objectively false.

If you're not going to present a reference, a discussion, or an explanation of any kind - then why bother posting?
To point out falsehoods perpetuated by folks such as yourself. You do know that you don't even have to reply if you don't want to, right? It would be more productive than just going on a rant complaining about things that aren't happening.

Your responses are FAR less useful than those of many people you ban.  I recommend you give yourself a three day ban to consider this.
If you want to continue your rant, I suggest you take it to the proper forum. Alternatively, if you have a concern, we also have a forum dedicated to that. I will ask you to refrain from derailing the thread further and if you are going to post, then stay on topic. Consider this a warning.



He DID say that.
False.

You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute.
I don't think there is much shouting going on, except for angsty round earth proponents who get upset when someone doesn't agree with them, or points out their incorrect claims.

The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
You aren't a moderator. If you are going to post, keep it on topic. If you want to complain about me, take it to the appropriate forum. Consider this a friendly warning.



Sadly, because they don't know enough math and science,
Nice projection, friend.

The fact of gravity wave proves that gravity works the way we think it does.  F=G.m1.m2/(d.d) - that equation works very well, and even without the evidence of gravity waves, it explains 100% of the effects we see on Earth.   FET's explanation for these effects (as you can see from my compendium of all of the discussions on the Wiki) merely says things like "the pull of the objects in the sky accounts for these effect"...but it doesn't.   The same stars are overhead all of the earth, the sum of their attractions must result in some results - but those results can't explain a perfectly circular decrease in gravity around the equator because (for example) the density of stars over the two hemispheres is observationally identical.  If their explanation were correct then the most "sky gravity" would be over the arctic - and the gravity there would be LESS than at the equator...not more.
So, you still have no evidence for the mechanism behind gravity. Gotcha.

So carping on about the lack of direct evidence for gravitons (which has precisely ZERO effect on our understanding of RET physics) is just a pathetic distraction to cover for the fact that there is no viable theory of FET "gravity" (or "universal acceleration") that comes remotely close to explaining what we actually see.
RE gravity is irrelevant in FE. Is there something about that which is confusing for you?

Junker is employing standard FE'er tactics of trying to distract people by picking apart a tiny, tiny nit of RET in the hope that we won't notice the gigantic CHASM of errors, inconsistencies and flat out impossibilities that make up FET.
This is a literal strawman and I would suggest you refrain from it if you want anyone take you seriously (from what I have seen so far, that isn't a concern for you so no big deal). You should stick to debating the things people actually say, not whatever you have made up in your head.

So junker... is this just "FALSE" - or can you actually explain FET "gravity" to us without saying "Look in the Wiki"...because I just did that and produced the results for everyone to read.
Sure thing. FET doesn't have gravity. If you want to understand FE's theories, I would suggest you search the fora and the wiki.

If you're just going to say it's not your job to find the explanations in the forum
Remember the earlier point about attacking a strawman? You are doing it again.

- then you might as well stop posting here because you're adding precisely nothing to the conversation - and that's often your criteria for banning people from posting.   A "self-ban" would be more honest here.

Please see my earlier comment about your ranting. If you want to complain, then take it to the appropriate forum. Otherwise, please stay on topic.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 06:24:04 PM by junker »

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2017, 06:53:12 PM »
He DID say that.
False.
Quote
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves.  For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO.   A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
He did say so. Right here. Direct quote from his post. That's how I knew the name to search for.

You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute.
I don't think there is much shouting going on, except for angsty round earth proponents who get upset when someone doesn't agree with them, or points out their incorrect claims.
If you're going to state something is false, it's generally an accepted rule of debate to provide a counterpoint, or explain why your opponent's claim is incorrect. I have not seen you doing this, at minimum in this thread. The idea of a debate is to spur discussion on the topic at hand. Simply stating something is false squashes said discussion. It is out of place in a debate, and it should be out of place in a debate forum. One wouldn't get up in a debate and simply state 'My opponent is incorrect' and sit back down, and expect any sort of points to be given.

This is why, in the first post, I attempted to offer an allegory of sorts on what you seemed to be doing. You are, in effect, sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating 'fake news' or 'false' in reply to points brought up, instead of giving an explanation or reasoning for why they are false, that could spur rebuttals or further discussion.

The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
You aren't a moderator. If you are going to post, keep it on topic. If you want to complain about me, take it to the appropriate forum. Consider this a friendly warning.
You're right, I'm not. Just to be certain, would the appropriate forum to express my concern that you aren't doing a good job be the 'Suggestions and Concerns' forum? Would it be of use to provide links there to the posts I am speaking about?


*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2017, 08:24:25 PM »
He DID say that.
False.
Quote
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves.  For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO.   A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
He did say so. Right here. Direct quote from his post. That's how I knew the name to search for.

Funny, I do not see the term:
...gravitational waves ...
anwhere in what you quoted.


If you're going to state something is false, it's generally an accepted rule of debate to provide a counterpoint, or explain why your opponent's claim is incorrect.
To be honest, I gladly would have if that was just what the reply had asked for. Instead, it was a whiny rant about how no one ever tells him what he wants and wants me to self-ban. Sorry, I am not enabling that kind of behavior.

I have not seen you doing this, at minimum in this thread. The idea of a debate is to spur discussion on the topic at hand. Simply stating something is false squashes said discussion. It is out of place in a debate, and it should be out of place in a debate forum. One wouldn't get up in a debate and simply state 'My opponent is incorrect' and sit back down, and expect any sort of points to be given.
I tend to agree. One also wouldn't go on the aforementioned rant, and would instead maybe just ask for clarity. My posts in this thread, while brief, are at least on the topic.

This is why, in the first post, I attempted to offer an allegory of sorts on what you seemed to be doing. You are, in effect, sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating 'fake news' or 'false' in reply to points brought up, instead of giving an explanation or reasoning for why they are false, that could spur rebuttals or further discussion.
That is simply not happening. I am happy to have a discussion, but I am not going to partake in long diatribes about FES/FET, or me in general. At least not in this forum.

You're right, I'm not. Just to be certain, would the appropriate forum to express my concern that you aren't doing a good job be the 'Suggestions and Concerns' forum? Would it be of use to provide links there to the posts I am speaking about?
If you have a concern, then yes, S&C is the place. If you want to rant angrily about me, I'd suggest Angry ranting. Feel free to post links to anything you have an issue with, and an admin will review and respond in time.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 08:28:03 PM by junker »

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2017, 08:42:48 PM »
He DID say that.
False.
Quote
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves.  For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO.   A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
He did say so. Right here. Direct quote from his post. That's how I knew the name to search for.

Funny, I do not see the term:
...gravitational waves ...
anwhere in what you quoted.
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book? How do they differ? They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2017, 08:53:31 PM »
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.

How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.

They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #50 on: July 26, 2017, 09:02:12 PM »
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.

How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.

They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
How do you define their definition difference then? Because my search results don't turn anything up, and in fact searching gravity wave gets me the information about the LIGO team's discovery. (Granted this could be Google trying to be helpful all things considered.)

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2017, 09:21:39 PM »
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.

How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.

They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
How do you define their definition difference then? Because my search results don't turn anything up, and in fact searching gravity wave gets me the information about the LIGO team's discovery. (Granted this could be Google trying to be helpful all things considered.)

Based on their actual definitions. Gravitation can certainly exist without gravity. I know people may use the terms synonymously, but they're not identical.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #52 on: July 26, 2017, 09:28:26 PM »
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.

How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.

They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
How do you define their definition difference then? Because my search results don't turn anything up, and in fact searching gravity wave gets me the information about the LIGO team's discovery. (Granted this could be Google trying to be helpful all things considered.)

Based on their actual definitions. Gravitation can certainly exist without gravity. I know people may use the terms synonymously, but they're not identical.
But what's the definition of gravity wave, and what's the definition of gravitational wave? Because my searches aren't turning up anything, and you can't ignore the fact that 'wave' is an important piece. Gravity and gravitational may not be equal, but adding the word wave to the end modifies things, and I would argue clarifies what is being discussed, which is part of what it does as a verb here.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #53 on: July 26, 2017, 09:56:35 PM »
But what's the definition of gravity wave, and what's the definition of gravitational wave? Because my searches aren't turning up anything, and you can't ignore the fact that 'wave' is an important piece. Gravity and gravitational may not be equal, but adding the word wave to the end modifies things, and I would argue clarifies what is being discussed, which is part of what it does as a verb here.

"Gravity wave" is a term used in fluid dynamics to describe...well, waves. Like ocean waves. I first came across the term when I saw a photo of patterns in high atmospheric clouds, captioned as such. I thought, "wait...what? they were just experimentally, tentatively confirmed - and now they are causing cloud formations?". Wikipedia set me straight.

But the term is acceptably used interchangeably with Gravitational Waves, except perhaps by pedants.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #54 on: July 26, 2017, 10:16:03 PM »
But what's the definition of gravity wave, and what's the definition of gravitational wave? Because my searches aren't turning up anything, and you can't ignore the fact that 'wave' is an important piece. Gravity and gravitational may not be equal, but adding the word wave to the end modifies things, and I would argue clarifies what is being discussed, which is part of what it does as a verb here.

"Gravity wave" is a term used in fluid dynamics to describe...well, waves. Like ocean waves. I first came across the term when I saw a photo of patterns in high atmospheric clouds, captioned as such. I thought, "wait...what? they were just experimentally, tentatively confirmed - and now they are causing cloud formations?". Wikipedia set me straight.

But the term is acceptably used interchangeably with Gravitational Waves, except perhaps by pedants.
Ah thank you! I figured Google was steering me poorly in it's attempt to give me relevant search results. XD

Offline Stu

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2017, 03:48:59 AM »
Einstein's GENERAL theory of relativity says that there is no experiment that can distinguish between uniform acceleration and uniform gravitation.  So if the FE community want to say that there is uniform acceleration - rather than uniform gravitation - that doesn't change the results of any experiments.

The problem for FET is that gravity isn't uniform...things weigh different amounts in different places - and that can't be explained by acceleration without some parts of the Earth accelerating faster than others...with obvious unfortunate consequences.  So universal acceleration alone can't explain all of the facts that are plainly out there.

I'm glad you added "uniform" to both acceleration and gravitation, to make it technically correct. The best kind of correct. Because in practical reality, specially on earth, you can tell. You can weigh yourself in Badwater Basin, then again at the top of Mt. Whitney. Or with experiments like this.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node87.html

In fact, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could not distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Given enough precise technology and some freedom to move.

That has been a headscratcher for me, as I grew up accepting that equality assertion. I reasoned that since they are identical, they must somehow be the same thing. At some deep fundamental level. Maybe everything is expanding at a rate proportional to it's mass. Maybe all the subatomic particles are expanding. But somehow maintaining proportional attributes, fields, etc. That could explain some things, say, the force of gravity on the Earth's surface, kind of like the UA. But I don't think that could explain the inverse square law. How would galaxies work, and the attraction between two of them. How would orbits work.

Anyway, at some point I figured that maybe they aren't the same fundamental thing. And maybe the claim that there is no experiment that can tell them apart, is flawed. Because is really no such thing as uniform gravitation. There is always a gradient. For something like the largest black hole known that has an event horizon about the equivalent of Pluto's orbit, and standing on a platform 10 times again as far, the gradient might be essentially practically immeasurable with any conceivable technology over the span of a few meters. (Given the inverse square law.) But if the distance between measurements is large enough, you'll find the gradient.

And yet, as you also pointed out, I don't think it would be possible for a gradient to form with acceleration.

Or would it? Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Not gravitation, and presumably not acceleration. We've never tried to accelerate a mountain, let alone long enough to measure G-force at top and bottom. If the velocity can only increase at on quantized planck time boundaries, and can propagate from bottom to top no faster than the speed of light light, and only in planck time increments, then the top will always be a bit behind the velocity of the bottom, thus you'd always weigh less at the top than the bottom. I know that seems illogical, but so does photons traversing the universe instantly while we see them as slow as molasses, until you understand General Relativity. Maybe there's a deeper underlying truth that unites both phenomenon.

So maybe gravitation and acceleration could be the same fundamental thing after all. Not just indistinguishable.

In other words, we just assume that UA would not produce the same weight measurments at sea level vs. mountain top. Certainly makes sense. But maybe it's not that simple, and it really would be indistinguishable. (And therefore we wouldn't need the "uniform" qualifier on gravitation and acceleration to make the equivalency still valid.)

My head hurts. I hope I didn't just give ammunition the the flat-earth UA model. Like, enough plausible-sounding babble to run with.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2018, 06:39:09 AM »
What about this, instead of gravitational force?
Velocity (Speed) is a force that would depend on the mass, matter, volume, and density of the item like a baseball. You could throw a basketball from the same spot as the baseball but because of the mass, matter, volume, and density difference of it, the Velocity speed would be much slower and the basketball would land much closer.

Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2018, 06:41:20 AM »
Could gravitational force just be replaced with Velocity?
Velocity (Speed) is a force that would depend on the mass, matter, volume, and density of the item like a baseball. You could throw a basketball from the same spot as the baseball but because of the mass, matter, volume, and density difference of it, the Velocity speed would be much slower and the basketball would land much closer.

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2018, 08:50:15 AM »
The ability to predict things is the most beautiful thing about RET physics.   We see from the theory of gravitation that there ought to be black holes - we can calculate what happens if two black holes might collide and how insanely powerful the gravitational wave would be - and how long it would take to reach Earth.  We can build a an actual machine that detects gravitational waves...and the results it produces are a perfect and beautiful match for what we predicted...then we can build a second one and figure out where these black holes are.

All of that comes from that one single equation...it's a thing of beauty.

And it's a very simple, common-sense way to figure out who has things right. There are people launching satellites which you can use for watching TV. There are people who predict eclipses, predict the paths of asteroids.

One could divide these people up into two groups. There are the ones who accept the theory of Universal Gravitation, as described by Isaac Newton, and amended by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. And there are those who do not - who have an alternative view. There is no overlap between people who reject the gravitational theory, and the people actually able to make predictions about the cosmos and to launch satellites.

So there are various possibilities. Either the gravitational theory is true, and that is what all those people are using to make their predictions - or it is false, but those people are making correct predictions in spite of that, due to coincidence - or the theory is false, and they know that, and they are lying, and using the real theory and hiding their actual calculations.

Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« Reply #59 on: March 05, 2018, 04:51:41 PM »
Could gravitational force just be replaced with Velocity?
Velocity (Speed) is a force that would depend on the mass, matter, volume, and density of the item like a baseball. You could throw a basketball from the same spot as the baseball but because of the mass, matter, volume, and density difference of it, the Velocity speed would be much slower and the basketball would land much closer.

That is due to friction in the atmosphere. There is no atmosphere in space, and therefore no friction.

Unless FET is claiming that there IS some sort of resisting force in space -- in which case I would like to see the proof and the math behind it.