The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TannerDalen on January 21, 2019, 11:03:53 AM
-
Hello! First off, let me say that I do not believe in a flat earth. I am here in the forums because I want to have an actual conversation and debate about this topic, which receives quite a bit of hate from the media and individuals alike. I can't say I blame them, after all this entire theory contradicts many thousands of years of scientific research. I know that there are arguments for many of the experiments in the past, but I'm not focusing on those quite yet. I'd like to have a conversation on the Power Source of Universal Acceleration (as stated in your overview section).
"The power source for the Universal Accelerator is beneath the earth and the earth's possible sub or super-structures, pushing it upwards, and is thus, not experienced. The power source for gravity, which allows mass to pull mass, however, should be all around us, and its mystery inexcusable." That is the quote directly from the Evidence for Universal Acceleration page.
Newton's 3rd Law states that with every force, there is an equal and opposite force. If there are sub-structures below the earth's surface pushing on the ground, subsequently pushing us upwards at 9.8m/s^2, wouldn't the ground be applying an equal and opposite force to the substructures?
I want to know all about the Flat Earth Society and their arguments. I don't want you to convince me, nor do I want to convince you. I just want to hear what arguments we can both give each other. Maybe we'll both learn something? Thank you!
-
There are even more problems with the UA. The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.
Regarding the power source - nobody would be able to actually "see" it, so the FEers can make any wild claims as they please. You know, dark matter, dark energy, ... (they usually choose something scientifically sounding so that their theories appear more plausible).
-
The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.
This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case.
-
The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.
This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case.
Which is yet another problem for UA. You have to have multiple sources to explain the gravity of other celestial bodies, while Newtonian gravity or, more precisely, GR, explains gravity very elegantly AND has the evidence to back it up.
Real space has curves lol.
-
There are even more problems with the UA. The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.
Regarding the power source - nobody would be able to actually "see" it, so the FEers can make any wild claims as they please. You know, dark matter, dark energy, ... (they usually choose something scientifically sounding so that their theories appear more plausible).
Firstly, you don't have to talk down to them and their argument like that. It immediately makes the other person feel like you are just going to ignore and insult them, which no one wants. But, I do agree with your argument wholeheartedly. And I want to dive deeper into that topic, shall we?
If the measurable gravity (or upward acceleration) is not 9.8m/s^2 everywhere on earth, meaning that different parts of the earth are accelerating upwards at different velocities, how does the ground not collapse on itself or shatter?
Links:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6074/do-we-take-gravity-9-8-m-s%C2%B2-for-all-heights-when-solving-problems-why-or-why
www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/
-
Firstly, you don't have to talk down to them and their argument like that. It immediately makes the other person feel like you are just going to ignore and insult them, which no one wants. (..)
Sorry, looking back I see that the way I put it was far from polite. In my defence, my irritation is based on true stories. Anyways, I'd like to apologize to anyone I may have offended and I promise I'm going to try to do better ;)
There are even more problems with the UA. The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.
Regarding the power source - nobody would be able to actually "see" it, so the FEers can make any wild claims as they please. You know, dark matter, dark energy, ... (they usually choose something scientifically sounding so that their theories appear more plausible).
(...) But, I do agree with your argument wholeheartedly. And I want to dive deeper into that topic, shall we?
If the measurable gravity (or upward acceleration) is not 9.8m/s^2 everywhere on earth, meaning that different parts of the earth are accelerating upwards at different velocities, how does the ground not collapse on itself or shatter?
Links:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6074/do-we-take-gravity-9-8-m-s%C2%B2-for-all-heights-when-solving-problems-why-or-why
www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/
I have another question: has it been clarified how the UA theory/hypothesis explains the Eötvös effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect)?
And regarding The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.
This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case.
I'm a bit lost. Can you, please, explain what you mean by the UA not being the only source of gravity? How many are there? What are they like? What data points to their existence? (Those are genuine questions, by the way. I haven't heard of this before so I'm truly interested. Does it have something to do with the CG?)
-
This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case
For something to be a 'source' of gravity it has to have mass, i.e. be ,made of matter. How does Universal Acceleration have mass? Acceleration only has magnitude and direction.
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
Isn't this the wrong way round? Flat Earth model is incompatible with the traditional theory of gravitation. We have a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly towards its centre. It's called Earth and its mass and acceleration due to its gravitation field have both been measured to high levels of accuracy.
-
This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case
For something to be a 'source' of gravity it has to have mass, i.e. be ,made of matter. How does Universal Acceleration have mass? Acceleration only has magnitude and direction.
I think Pete here is saying UA isn't the only source of acceleration? It looks like he's using the word "gravity" as a standin for the unbalanced resultant force from UA on a flat earth, so what he's saying is from the context of his reply to Stagiri's post is that there are other accelerations balancing out the gravitational acceleration where it's different so the flat Earth doesn't tear apart? That sounds confusing and Pete could tell us what he meant better than me. But if my interpretation of what he said is correct, then shouldn't we not be able to detect the different gravitational accelerations if there are other accelerations (and therefore forces) keeping the flat earth together?
-
The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.
This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case.
Are you saying we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe, or that we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe that is affecting the Earth?
-
Well I will wait in anticipation to find out what those sources of acceleration are. Clearly they must be objects with mass so should be detectable. Acceleration is a function of mass and distance. Gravitational force is in theory infinite in range since we can continue to increase distance and the magnitude of the force will continue to decrease without ever getting to zero.
-
This is where my confusion on the subject lies.
1. My claim is that there is one type of gravity, meaning that I can use specific equations with distinct variables to measure the gravitational force objects have on one another. That equation should not change or be discarded when talking about a specific body of mass. Why should the equation that can tell me the gravitational pull of Jupiter, Mars, or Pluto be any different than the equation we use for Earth? If Jupiter is a sphere, and GM/R^2 refers to the acceleration towards the center of Jupiter, why would it be any for us on earth. If you keep units, geometry, and variables the same in the equation, you can change all the numbers to fit Earth instead of Jupiter.
2. Still, my first problem was never addressed. If the substructures are pushing upwards with 9.8m/s^2 worth of acceleration, then the ground is also pushing on the substructures with equal force (not equal acceleration). This scenario would require objects, or substructures, to fall in the opposite direction of the UA in order to even HAVE a UA. It's that, or have a negative/infinite mass.
-
1. That would be my understanding as well. Since we know the value of G (6.67 x 10^-11) and we know the masses and radii of all the planets we can calculate the value of the local gravitational acceleration (g) for all of them., And not surprisingly as the mass increases so does the value of g.
2. That's a FE idea so no idea about that. I can only assume that FE theory has its own laws of physics that explain all that.
-
Which is yet another problem for UA. You have to have multiple sources to explain the gravity of other celestial bodies
You say that as if GR only had a single source.
while Newtonian gravity or, more precisely, GR, explains gravity very elegantly
And, of course, incorrectly. But you knew that already.
Real space has curves lol.
Keep this sort of trash out of the upper fora. Familiarise yourself with the rules (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0).
Does it have something to do with the CG?
It has everything to do with CG. The measurable gravity that affects you is a combination of multiple factors. This is true in either model, but for some reason people always assume that UA should somehow be a one-force-explains-all kinda deal.
Are you saying we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe, or that we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe that is affecting the Earth?
Both.
It looks like he's using the word "gravity" as a standin for the unbalanced resultant force from UA
Yes, I maintain a distinction between gravity and gravitation. But you don't need anything to "keep the Earth together". It accelerates upwards at a constant rate, throughout.
Your assumption is that since you can measure different values of g for different locations on Earth (and above it), then UA itself is different for each of these locations. This is simply not the case. The variations are primarily in CG, resulting from varying distance from other celestial bodies, the density of the matter directly beneath you, etc.
In comparison, your claim sounds to me just about as silly as someone claiming that since gravity is generally weaker on the equator than on the poles, the Round Earth is about to rapidly bulge itself out of its roughly spherical shape. It's a misunderstanding of concepts, but instead of trying to understand the concepts, you just shout far-reaching implications and demand that someone sets you straight. Most people won't have the patience to do that.
-
Which is yet another problem for UA. You have to have multiple sources to explain the gravity of other celestial bodies
You say that as if GR only had a single source.
I'm getting a bit lost in all the abbreviations so just to make it clear: does "GR" stand for the RET gravity? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you that in the RET, gravity has only one source - mass.
Does it have something to do with the CG?
It has everything to do with CG. The measurable gravity that affects you is a combination of multiple factors. This is true in either model, but for some reason people always assume that UA should somehow be a one-force-explains-all kinda deal.
(...)
Your assumption is that since you can measure different values of g for different locations on Earth (and above it), then UA itself is different for each of these locations. This is simply not the case. The variations are primarily in CG, resulting from varying distance from other celestial bodies, the density of the matter directly beneath you, etc.
Ok, I see. So, could you, please, remind me of how the CG (or the UA) explains the Eötvös effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect)? Thank you.
In comparison, your claim sounds to me just about as silly as someone claiming that since gravity is generally weaker on the equator than on the poles, the Round Earth is about to rapidly bulge itself out of its roughly spherical shape. It's a misunderstanding of concepts, but instead of trying to understand the concepts, you just shout far-reaching implications and demand that someone sets you straight. Most people won't have the patience to do that.
Well, the RE does bulge a little (according to the RET) but the bulge stays the same. However, if the UA was the only force in play the difference would increase. For you to get an idea: in not even 15 minutes of accelerating from zero velocity, the elevation difference between Mount Huascaran and the Arctic Ocean, the areas with the most extreme gravitational accelerations, would be greater than between the bottom of the Mariana Trench and Mt Everest (on the RE) and in 29 hours it would be 384 000 km, the same as the mean distance between the Earth and the Moon (in the heliocentric model).
-
I'm getting a bit lost in all the abbreviations so just to make it clear: does "GR" stand for the RET gravity? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you that in the RET, gravity has only one source - mass.
General Relativity. And no, you can't act like all celestial bodies (or, indeed, all bodies with a mass) are one and the same source. You're looking at multiple forces, pulling in different directions. Sure, the principle behind these forces is the same, but that is neither here nor there.
Ok, I see. So, could you, please, remind me of how the CG (or the UA) explains the Eötvös effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect)? Thank you.
I can't, because I don't know the answer, and I do not wish to speculate on something I haven't personally investigated.
For you to get an idea:
I understand why different parts of the same body accelerating at different rates would necessarily require the object to come apart, and fast. It's a very direct consequence which doesn't need explaining. If I (fallaciously) made similar assumptions for RET, I'd reach similarly broken conclusions.
-
A quick question for you Pete:
Earth has inconsistent gravitational acceleration over its surface area, something exhaustively tested and acknowledged by many members of the FE community. (Interestingly, most of the discrepancy is that gravity is stronger near the poles and weaker at the equator, something which no Flat earther has ever explained to me satisfactorily). In Globe Earth theory, these discrepancies are explained by the earth not being a perfect sphere (GE theory does acknowledge that there are multiple sources of gravity on earth's surface, but they are all negligible compared to the earth itself, because the earth is much larger and closer than anything else). In Flat Earth theory, these discrepancies are explained (if I'm understanding you correctly) by gravity (or gravitation, since you make a distinction) is coming from various sources. I was wondering if you might speculate why we observe certain trends in the distribution of gravitational acceleration:
greater near the poles, less at the equator
greater at sea level, less at elevation
greater on continents, less on oceans
Globe Earth Theory addresses all these points easily and elegantly, with a single law. The law of gravitation-- of which the standard is general relativity-- is a universal principle. It does not "source" from anything, as you said. It is a formula which explains how energy (including the energy of mass) bends spacetime. Flat Earth theory does not have a law analogous to GR, and there is no consensus on why planets behave the way they do, or why earth's gravitational acceleration is so distributed. Because of this, at the current moment, Globe Earth must be considered the superior scientific model for planetary motion and all things gravity. This is not because it is true; it is because GR works very well (again, observationally confirmed exhaustively and acknowledged by many flat earthers), and nothing the FE community has come up with comes close (so far). There is no unified FE theory of gravitation, and until there is one that explains observed phenomena as good or better than GR, the better scientific model is GR. Again, not because it's true, but because it's predictive power is so much more useful.
-
A quick question for you Pete
I can't help but notice that I've addressed all of these questions in this thread already. Our answer is not very different from yours.
greater near the poles, less at the equator
Presumably because a location at the equator puts you closer to the heaviest celestial bodies above us.
greater at sea level, less at elevation
Again - closer to the heavens and farther from the Earth.
greater on continents, less on oceans
Water is less dense than solid ground.
Again, not because it's true, but because it's predictive power is so much more useful.
And that's where we differ. I'm not especially interested in convenience (especially when that convenience would have me accept a model that's known to break under some observations), I'm interested in truth. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind casually assuming RET if it helps me figure out how fast a tennis ball will fall if I drop it out my window, much like most people don't mind assuming classical mechanics for the same exercise. But that doesn't make it true, and thus it's not my main focus.
-
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the earth, the people on it, and the heavenly bodies are all attracted to one another gravitationally, by the virtue of them all having mass. You yourself (and many FE folks) have acknowledged this. So, what keeps the earth from colliding with these celestial bodies? The earth is accelerating upward toward them after all. Are they also subject to UA? In fact, the celestial bodies must actually be experiencing greater UA since they are able to outrun the earth's gravitational pull. And if they're accelerating faster, they are bound to move away over time.
This brings me to a point I forgot to mention earlier: if all observed gravitational acceleration on earth was the result of UA, the earth absolutely would rip itself apart as it rose. You said that you see no reason why this would occur, but this is a basic property of acceleration. Different acceleration by definition means that over time points on the surface will achieve unequal velocities, and unequal velocities implies that the two points will not stay near each other as time advances, ergo the earth would need to tear apart to accomodate all these differently accelerating points.
As for the final matter, I greatly respect and admire your desire to discover the truth. The relationship between scientific inquiry and truth has a long and messy history, and is probably best left to minds greater than ours. The greatest quagmire seems to be that no amount of positive evidence can ever, with certainty, prove a theory true. Of course, it is comparably easy to disprove a theory-- all that's needed is a counterexample. Hence the scientific method: the aim is always to disprove a null hypothesis, rather than to prove a true one. There is confirmatory and contrary evidence for both FE and GE, and depending on who you ask, both theories are capable of dealing with the contrary evidence (I'm granting you a huge concession here by the way). The only real difference is that GE is a very simple explanation, and has amazing predictive power, and FE theory is extremely complicated and has not yet advanced to having the capabilities to make solid predictions (of the sort made by GR). Most conversations I've had with flat earthers that got this far resulted in a stunning rejection of the premise that FE theory was "extremely complicated," but this is exactly the case. At first, it seems much simpler, but then you have to factor in something that explains the movement of the stars, and gravity, and the ether, and jovian moon orbits, and seasons, and whatever science discovers next year, etc. And you can do it, don't get me wrong. It's possible to believe in a model that just adds another entity to explain any stray phenomena, and you can do this ad infinitum and still have a valid theory. The theory wouldn't be "wrong" in any way. My question to you is: does that theory look like truth?
I had a philosophy professor who used to insist that he believed that instead of gravity, matter in the universe was pushed around by invisible gremlins. It is, as we learned, impossible to disprove this, especially when the interlocutor is free to speculatively invent new pieces to the theory (ie, something that explains gravitational waves) as he goes. It's pretty clear to me that although this model "works," it is almost certainly not true, simply because it is equally as likely as any other model for gravity which lacks evidence (UA). In the end, we're free to believe whatever we want, but know that Globe theorists have the unique advantage of (copious) evidence. I'm unclear why you would bet on any other horse if you were looking for truth.
-
The earth is accelerating upwards
I have a problem with this term acceleration because acceleration means rate of change of velocity. Velocity can only change if speed and/or direction changes. Accelerating upwards would seem to suggest that direction is not changing so it can only be speed that is changing. If that is the case then the effect of 'gravity' on a flat Earth would be different to what we experience in the real world where speed remains the same but direction changes.
Also what is the flat Earth accelerating through? I would have said space but direction is irrelevant in space.
-
The earth is accelerating upwards
Accelerating upwards would seem to suggest that direction is not changing so it can only be speed that is changing. If that is the case then the effect of 'gravity' on a flat Earth would be different to what we experience in the real world where speed remains the same but direction changes.
In Round Earth (and Flat Earth) theory, acceleration due to gravity is completely indistinguishable from constant acceleration. If you were sealed in a box, there would be no way you could conduct an experiment to determine if you were on earth's surface or in a rocket far from earth that was accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2. You are correct that objects on opposite sides of Round Earth fall in different directions, but both experience the same magnitude of acceleration. Acceleration (like velocity) is a vector quantity and has both a magnitude and a direction.
Round earth theory does not derive gravitational acceleration from a change in direction, either. Objects always accelerate in the same direction: toward the center of the planet.
-
Same direction w.r.t the centre of the Earth (which can be assume to be a point source for purposes of measurement) but opposite directions in space. Question remains though what is the Earth accelerating through since I didn't think that flat Earthers believe there is such as thing as outer space in the same way that round Earthers do.
-
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the earth, the people on it, and the heavenly bodies are all attracted to one another gravitationally, by the virtue of them all having mass. You yourself (and many FE folks) have acknowledged this. So, what keeps the earth from colliding with these celestial bodies? The earth is accelerating upward toward them after all. Are they also subject to UA? In fact, the celestial bodies must actually be experiencing greater UA since they are able to outrun the earth's gravitational pull. And if they're accelerating faster, they are bound to move away over time.
It would be very helpful if you familiarised yourself with the basics prior to debating.
This brings me to a point I forgot to mention earlier: if all observed gravitational acceleration on earth was the result of UA, the earth absolutely would rip itself apart as it rose.
Haven't I already addressed this in this thread? Twice? Am I missing some nuance to your question that differentiates it from seemingly identical statements from others?
[...] It's possible to believe in a model that just adds another entity to explain any stray phenomena, and you can do this ad infinitum and still have a valid theory. The theory wouldn't be "wrong" in any way. My question to you is: does that theory look like truth?
It's the closest I've gotten thus far. Is it complete? No. Is it likely that everything I currently believe is true? No. As such, I can't answer your question with a simple "yes" or "no". It's somewhere in between.
In the end, we're free to believe whatever we want, but know that Globe theorists have the unique advantage of (copious) evidence. I'm unclear why you would bet on any other horse if you were looking for truth.
RE'ers like to say that. They pretend they've never heard of the many discrepancies and anomalies that (for example) GR introduces. Of course, if they paid attention in high school, then they should be well aware of the issues. But it's easier to block that out, or get defensive about just how much worse UA is in their mind.
-
Universal Acceleration would require the entirety of the Universe to speed up and pass the Earth doing cartwheels around us, correct? We know stars have 2 celestial axis, Not just a north centered axis. If it was just North then the star trails would be very different and UA model would be much easier. The power source to selectively speed up or slow down in different directions would be something cyclical that rotated itself, like a second shell around the stars applying upward force on halftime stars and downward force on the other half. Clarification on UA that matches observation of the movement of the stars is needed.
-
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the earth, the people on it, and the heavenly bodies are all attracted to one another gravitationally, by the virtue of them all having mass. You yourself (and many FE folks) have acknowledged this. So, what keeps the earth from colliding with these celestial bodies? The earth is accelerating upward toward them after all. Are they also subject to UA? In fact, the celestial bodies must actually be experiencing greater UA since they are able to outrun the earth's gravitational pull. And if they're accelerating faster, they are bound to move away over time.
This brings me to a point I forgot to mention earlier: if all observed gravitational acceleration on earth was the result of UA, the earth absolutely would rip itself apart as it rose. You said that you see no reason why this would occur, but this is a basic property of acceleration. Different acceleration by definition means that over time points on the surface will achieve unequal velocities, and unequal velocities implies that the two points will not stay near each other as time advances, ergo the earth would need to tear apart to accomodate all these differently accelerating points.
As for the final matter, I greatly respect and admire your desire to discover the truth. The relationship between scientific inquiry and truth has a long and messy history, and is probably best left to minds greater than ours. The greatest quagmire seems to be that no amount of positive evidence can ever, with certainty, prove a theory true. Of course, it is comparably easy to disprove a theory-- all that's needed is a counterexample. Hence the scientific method: the aim is always to disprove a null hypothesis, rather than to prove a true one. There is confirmatory and contrary evidence for both FE and GE, and depending on who you ask, both theories are capable of dealing with the contrary evidence (I'm granting you a huge concession here by the way). The only real difference is that GE is a very simple explanation, and has amazing predictive power, and FE theory is extremely complicated and has not yet advanced to having the capabilities to make solid predictions (of the sort made by GR). Most conversations I've had with flat earthers that got this far resulted in a stunning rejection of the premise that FE theory was "extremely complicated," but this is exactly the case. At first, it seems much simpler, but then you have to factor in something that explains the movement of the stars, and gravity, and the ether, and jovian moon orbits, and seasons, and whatever science discovers next year, etc. And you can do it, don't get me wrong. It's possible to believe in a model that just adds another entity to explain any stray phenomena, and you can do this ad infinitum and still have a valid theory. The theory wouldn't be "wrong" in any way. My question to you is: does that theory look like truth?
I had a philosophy professor who used to insist that he believed that instead of gravity, matter in the universe was pushed around by invisible gremlins. It is, as we learned, impossible to disprove this, especially when the interlocutor is free to speculatively invent new pieces to the theory (ie, something that explains gravitational waves) as he goes. It's pretty clear to me that although this model "works," it is almost certainly not true, simply because it is equally as likely as any other model for gravity which lacks evidence (UA). In the end, we're free to believe whatever we want, but know that Globe theorists have the unique advantage of (copious) evidence. I'm unclear why you would bet on any other horse if you were looking for truth.
I am only quoting this because I think it needs to be read quite a few times.
-
Here’s the deal. Scientists have a very good understanding of how gravity works. So much so that we can accurately predict the motion of the celestial bodies and slingshot spacecraft past them to get a speed boost.
Space-time curves. This has evidence to back it up. Real evidence. This curvature is due to mass. This has evidence to support it, real evidence.
This is not to say that there aren’t hypothetical problems with general relativity, there are. But it’s the best we have came up with so far, and it’s scary accurate.
Now, some people say because GR has a few problems, they’d rather believe that the earth is accelerating upward at ~9.8m/s squared?
This, to me, is absolutely unacceptable if you’re actually searching for the truth. The tiny holes in GR pale in comparison to the gaping canyons that UA has. Even defending UA by saying it’s somehow equivalent to GR in that they’re both flawed is silly and shows bias, which is anathema to real science.
-
I'm getting a bit lost in all the abbreviations so just to make it clear: does "GR" stand for the RET gravity? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you that in the RET, gravity has only one source - mass.
General Relativity. And no, you can't act like all celestial bodies (or, indeed, all bodies with a mass) are one and the same source. You're looking at multiple forces, pulling in different directions. Sure, the principle behind these forces is the same, but that is neither here nor there.
Thank you for the clarification. Multiple sources but one universal principle - that's exactly what I meant (and I'm sorry if I put it unclearly before).
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
Ok, I see. So, could you, please, remind me of how the CG (or the UA) explains the Eötvös effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect)? Thank you.
I can't, because I don't know the answer, and I do not wish to speculate on something I haven't personally investigated.
Thank you for your response.
-
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
You did misunderstand, but that's probably my fault. Let me try to unwrap what I meant.
The original objection was that GR has a single source, where UA has many. I disagree with that objection - the sources of RET gravitation are multiple, each object with a mass having its own pull. The fact that they all follow the same principle is not relevant.
-
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
You did misunderstand, but that's probably my fault. Let me try to unwrap what I meant.
The original objection was that GR has a single source, where UA has many. I disagree with that objection - the sources of RET gravitation are multiple, each object with a mass having its own pull. The fact that they all follow the same principle is not relevant.
Ok, I see. Sorry for wasting your time. Thank you ;)
-
Here’s the deal. Scientists have a very good understanding of how gravity works. So much so that we can accurately predict the motion of the celestial bodies and slingshot spacecraft past them to get a speed boost.
This isn’t the kind of evidence that will convince a group in which many believe that all space flight is faked. (Yes, I know there are a few who have reconciled satellites and FE, but that is far from a majority opinion). Better, in my opinion, to focus on measured phenomena like the Eötvös effect and why it supports the mainstream understanding of gravity while being difficult to explain in a UA model.
-
We have a Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_Effect#An_Effect_of_Gravimetry) on the Eötvös effect now. The matter is related to Gravimetry (https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry).