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.
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.
Recent Posts