The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MagnusSuperior on January 06, 2020, 05:11:43 PM

Title: Gravity
Post by: MagnusSuperior on January 06, 2020, 05:11:43 PM
If the Earth is accelerating upward at a constant rate, then why does something weigh different at Mount Everest as opposed to sea level?
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2020, 06:57:32 AM
Universal Acceleration is not the only factor in weight. You may want to read up on UA (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal Acceleration), and have a look at our Variations in Gravity (https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity) page (which covers several competing models)
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: MagnusSuperior on January 08, 2020, 02:45:48 PM
Do you have a conjecture for if gravity exists or not?
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2020, 08:34:57 PM
I think that the earth is accelerating upwards and that gravity probably does not exist. According to various time dilation experiments, the Equivalence Principle has been confirmed to great heights. A new article:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravitational_Time_Dilation

And as stated earlier, weight is also affected by other factors. Pressure, air viscosity, humidity, etc, might be causing the slight variations. I have not been able to find examples of those experiments conducted in a vaccum chamber.
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 09, 2020, 10:13:54 AM
I think that the earth is accelerating upwards and that gravity probably does not exist. According to various time dilation experiments, the Equivalence Principle has been confirmed to great heights. A new article:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravitational_Time_Dilation

I'm genuinely confused by that page.
You decry the scientific method and dismiss experiments which show gravity is a thing but you cite on that page some scientific experiments which back up your ideas.
You think NASA are faking everything which shows you to be wrong but randomly cite NASA's research here.
Can you honestly not see how dishonest this cherry picking is?
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2020, 12:47:11 PM
The page is merely factual about the claims of the time dialation experiments. Those experiments show that the uniform gravitational field of the Equivalence Principle is shown experimentally. Even if we pretend that the earth is round, it is still curious why the experiments can't seem to find a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

Gravity Probe B is even wackier than Gravity Probe A. It is claimed that some aspects of the Equivalence Principle are verified to over 400 miles from the Earth's surface on an orbiting satellite.

Are you going to tell me that we can't talk about this odd result that is claimed from Gravity Probe B, either?
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 09, 2020, 05:32:55 PM
Are you going to tell me that we can't talk about this odd result that is claimed from Gravity Probe B, either?
Talk about what you like dude but given the number of experiments the results of which dispute when they don't fit your world view - you literally have an entire Wiki page trying to cast doubt on the Cavendish experiment - it's pretty dishonest of you to cherry pick results from experiments which you think support your view. And it's particularly odd to talk about the results from the Gravity Probe B when it was a NASA mission involving a satellite which orbited the globe.
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2020, 06:22:21 PM
The point is that even if we hold that the earth is a globe, various mainstream experiments, and even space experiments, have a hard time finding violations with the Equivalence Principle.

Therefore you guys can't really tell us that the Equivalence Principle only applies locally in a very small container. You should show experiments where it starts breaking down. This is only indirectly related to FE vs. RE. You are claiming that there are variations in gravity and it would be interesting to see the experiments which show this, regardless of whatever shape the earth might be.
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: pricelesspearl on January 09, 2020, 08:49:37 PM
Quote
The point is that even if we hold that the earth is a globe, various mainstream experiments, and even space experiments, have a hard time finding violations with the Equivalence Principle.

Therefore you guys can't really tell us that the Equivalence Principle only applies locally in a very small container.

Your lack of the ability to use simple logic is showing again.

EP roughly states that in a windowless room, without any other point of reference, an observer cannot distinguish upward acceleration from gravity.
Your logic is that since all experiments confirm the EP, what the EP specifically states is false.  Yeah, that makes total sense.  ::)

It might be true that even with an outside point of reference, an observer can’t tell the difference.  But that wouldn’t be the EP and I don’t think there has been any experiments that suggest its true and simple experiments involving tidal forces disprove it.

I can’t access the link you provided.  I don’t know if it is the link or my computer, but I don’t know where you get the idea that time dilation suggests that gravity doesn’t exist.  The opposite is true.  Time slows down in stronger gravitational fields.  How would upward acceleration cause that?



Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: BillO on January 10, 2020, 01:45:00 AM
Even if we pretend that the earth is round, it is still curious why the experiments can't seem to find a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

Well, this is simply just not true.  The velocities of stable orbits at different altitudes are ample evidence (dare I say proof) of gravity falling off at 1/(r^2).

The equivalence principle only holds true for highly contained conditions.  The most important is that you do not displace yourself along the direction of the apparent acceleration.
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: iamcpc on January 10, 2020, 10:46:38 PM
If the Earth is accelerating upward at a constant rate, then why does something weigh different at Mount Everest as opposed to sea level?

1. Less air pressure
2. Maybe the force pushing up on the earth which is casing the acceleration is not evenly distributed.


Also please keep in mind that there are some FE models which don't adhere to UA.
UA is a concept or idea which only applies to a portion of all FE models.
Title: Re: Gravity
Post by: BillO on January 10, 2020, 11:57:04 PM
1. Less air pressure
Buoyancy due to air, considering sufficiently dense test objects, is no where near enough to account for the difference.

2. Maybe the force pushing up on the earth which is casing the acceleration is not evenly distributed.
Then it's not UA, is it?

Also please keep in mind that there are some FE models which don't adhere to UA.
UA is a concept or idea which only applies to a portion of all FE models.
There is no consistency at all in the FE 'space'.  Ask 10 different FE'ers and you'll get 10 different, and substantially contradictory, hypotheses for the FE.