#### Zonk

• 71
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2019, 04:38:40 PM »
Quote
See my final paragraph, beginning ‘Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction …’.

It does.  Newtonian gravitational attraction requires objects to be attracted  their common center of mass.  No matter what one's  earth model looks like,  if it is not a sphere, the gravitational vector will vary depending on where one is on the surface.  This phenomenon has never been observed.  Observed gravity acts the same* whether one is on the North Pole, the equator, or on the "ice wall". That cannot happen on a flat earth with Newtonian gravitational attraction.

*Yes, the magnitude varies slightly but the vector does not.  The vector will point towards the center of mass, and on a flat earth, it is impossible for the center of mass to be directly below the surface at all every place.

#### edby

• 1079
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #61 on: August 25, 2019, 04:47:58 PM »
Quote
See my final paragraph, beginning ‘Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction …’.

It does.  Newtonian gravitational attraction requires objects to be attracted  their common center of mass.  No matter what one's  earth model looks like,  if it is not a sphere, the gravitational vector will vary depending on where one is on the surface.  This phenomenon has never been observed.  Observed gravity acts the same* whether one is on the North Pole, the equator, or on the "ice wall". That cannot happen on a flat earth with Newtonian gravitational attraction.

*Yes, the magnitude varies slightly but the vector does not.  The vector will point towards the center of mass, and on a flat earth, it is impossible for the center of mass to be directly below the surface at all every place.
Right, but if I understand Pete correctly, that is not what he is suggesting. He is agreeing with the wiki that the observed downward acceleration of 9.8ms^2 is due to the upward acceleration of UA, but at the same time suggests that this effect can co-exist with Newtonian gravitational acceleration, without the extra Newtonian force causing an increase in observed downward acceleration. This I completely fail to follow. But as Pete says, this is probably due to my misunderstanding of FE.

My understanding of classical mechanics is that the resultant force caused by two independent forces acting on the same object is the mathematical sum of the two forces.

This explains it without the need for maths.

http://physicsnet.co.uk/gcse-physics/the-effects-of-forces-resultant-force-and-motion/
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 04:49:39 PM by edby »

#### edby

• 1079
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #62 on: August 25, 2019, 08:52:13 PM »
• Personal attacks do not advance your argument. Indeed, they make you look like the kind of person who needs to resort to personal attacks to self-validate.
• You're posting on an open online forum. My personal competence should be the least of your concern. You are presenting your argument to everyone.
My apologies. No personal attack was intended. But I don’t know how much mathematics you understand, and forgive me again, but if you understood the mathematics, you wouldn’t be asking me to explaining the reasoning, as you did here.

There are a few steps, but they are not difficult. The first thing is to understand the idea of resultant force. This website explains it very well.

It’s not highly mathematical. The idea is that if you apply two forces, say of 10 Newtons each, then the effect is exactly the same as if you had applied one force of 20 Newtons. Or if you apply 10N in the forward direction and 5N in the backward direction, it’s as though you had applied a forward force of 5N. The site gives three other examples.

You are bound to say, ‘what has this to do with anything’. Fair enough, but you asked me to explain the reasoning behind my post here.

Understanding resultant force is the first step in helping you to understand. There is only one more step, but I need to be sure you understand the first step. It’s all about resultant force.

I am here to help.

#### edby

• 1079
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #63 on: August 25, 2019, 09:08:33 PM »
I may as well give the second step of the reasoning. Suppose we have a 1 kg mass on the table, and suppose (as hypothesised) that Newton’s theory is true. Then the purely gravitational force exerted is

F1  = ma  =  1kg x 9.86 m/S^2  =  9.86N

Then suppose also that UA is accelerating the table upwards by 9.86 m/S^2. Then

F2  = ma  =  1kg x 9.86 m/S^2  =  9.86N

The principle of resultant force says that the two forces are equivalent to a single force equal to the sum of the forces. Thus

F  =  F1 + F2  =  9.86N + 9.86N  =  19.72N

And forgive me but there is a third step. What is the total acceleration caused by the two forces. Well

a  = F/m  =  19.72N/1kg  =  19.72 m/S^2

Hence, if both UA and Newtonian gravitation are acting upon our 1kg weight, it would accelerate by 19.72 m/S^2 if taken from the table and allowed to fall. But we observe no such thing. QED.

In summary: step 1, understand the idea of resultant force, step 2 understand how UA and Newtonian gravitation exert two separate forces, step 3, understand the resulting acceleration.

[EDIT] And remember this proof is in support of my claim above, that

Quote
If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2. But it isn’t.

Which was precisely the claim that Pete asked me to provide evidence for.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 09:18:30 PM by edby »

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9747
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #64 on: August 26, 2019, 08:32:39 AM »
edby, you really have to take some time to try and understand how discussion fora work.

I am not asking you to explain your reasoning because I'm somehow stunned by the idea of 10+10=20, or 10N+10N=20N. Indeed, given your previous claims of academic interest (and the, uh, quality of evidence behind that claim), I'd be willing to wager that my mainstream physics education is far more thorough than yours. This is why I suggested you should likely not worry about that, and it turns out I was right.

I am asking you to explain your reasoning because you must have got some of your assumptions wrong to reach this conclusion. I can make an educated guess as to where you fucked up, but that risks me being equally unhelpful as you just were above. So, either explain yourself, or stop wasting time and make space for those who actually want to improve themselves.

Do recall that the actual question asked to you was:
What makes you think so? It's completely not what we propose. Have you found this claim somewhere, or is it just a product of your active imagination?

Do note that your claim that I asked you to prove your conclusion is a transparent lie - all one needs to do to check it is scroll up, making it rather ineffective.

I pointed out that the source of your premises is dubious, and verges on completely made up. Your response to that was "It's mathematics." You can probably see why that answer would not be very helpful, yet somehow you managed to post something of even less value! Astonishing.

Your issue was, and continues to be, that your assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with FET. Making up a silly claim and then proving that it's internally consistent is slightly amusing, but not very helpful in the upper boards. If you continue trying to derail this thread, I'm going to have to put on the moderator hat - something I really don't want to do when it looks like we can make some progress. You've all but conceded the original logical fallacy, and now we just need to work through your gaps in knowledge.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 08:37:18 AM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### edby

• 1079
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #65 on: August 26, 2019, 09:33:39 AM »
edby, you really have to take some time to try and understand how discussion fora work.
Well I don't understand how they work. My experience of discussion for the last 30 odd years has been through the standard process of peer review by experts. I fully understand how that process works.

Since I have no need to 'take time' to understand discussion fora, indeed I need to spend much time currently with the reviewers of the current book, and with the managing editor, plus another paper in preparation, I will bow out of this 'discussion'.

Regards
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 09:44:09 AM by edby »

#### totallackey

• 1245
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #66 on: August 26, 2019, 10:24:22 AM »

Witnessing things fall, assigning numbers to a rate, formulating a couple of equations, does not even constitute a definition, explanation, proof of, or cursory evidence of the mythical force called gravity.

It constitutes numbers and how they work.

That is virtually the same thing as taking each of the participants' monikers here, assigning a number to each  of the letters, then ask each participant to simply cross out a number and read back the total sum of those left. By casting out nines, one could magically inform each participant the number they chose to cross out.

FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 11:13:38 AM by totallackey »

#### newhorizons

##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #67 on: August 26, 2019, 12:50:15 PM »
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain.

What is this about then if it isn't an explanation of gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

#### pricelesspearl

• 44
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #68 on: August 26, 2019, 01:47:11 PM »
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain

RET has offered an explanation. It’s called Newtonian Gravity, later refined by General Relativity.  As has been pointed out over and over, the burden of proof is on FET if it wants to challenge that explanation and be considered a viable scientific alternative to RET.  Just offering alternate explanations does not rise to the level of a serious scientific challenge.

Nearly every scientific breakthrough has been made when someone challenges the prevailing views.  Observations are made, studies are conducted, explanations are provided, papers are submitted for peer review and those that meet good scientific standards (acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication in well regarded publications. Others in the field test the claims and if results are sufficiently replicated, eventually it becomes the new prevailing view.  That's how you change minds in the scientific community and prove why your theory or view should replace the current understanding.

FE has done none of that.  All that is offered are alternate explanations with no reason given why that explanation should replace the prevailing one.  It is disingenuous, at best, to suggest to people coming to the website and others like it, who may be coming looking for real answers, that “what if”, “could be”, circular logic and arguments from ignorance rise to the level of actual scientific inquiry, much less actual proof.  They don’t.

#### totallackey

• 1245
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #69 on: August 26, 2019, 03:19:04 PM »
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain.

What is this about then if it isn't an explanation of gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
Can you direct me to the sentence or series of sentences that states:

"This explains gravity."

Other than that, it is something that explains the postulate of gravitational waves, a proposed aspect of general relativity.

#### totallackey

• 1245
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #70 on: August 26, 2019, 03:24:50 PM »
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain

RET has offered an explanation. It’s called Newtonian Gravity, later refined by General Relativity.
No, it hasn't.

For instance, GR does nothing to further explain the concept of terrestrial gravity.
As has been pointed out over and over, the burden of proof is on FET if it wants to challenge that explanation and be considered a viable scientific alternative to RET.  Just offering alternate explanations does not rise to the level of a serious scientific challenge.
And has been pointed out to you numerous times, RET has explained NOTHING.

As I pointed out, posting a bunch of numbers that match observations is not an explanation, it is score keeping.

#### pricelesspearl

• 44
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #71 on: August 26, 2019, 03:50:27 PM »
Quote
As I pointed out, posting a bunch of numbers that match observations is not an explanation, it is score keeping.

Here is a very simplified version of the Theory of Relativity.  It does much more than just throwing out numbers that match observations.  It explains why the numbers match the observations.  Relativity explains where the gravity comes from.

https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

A few quotes...

"In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

"Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another."

"As he worked out the equations for his general theory of relativity, Einstein realized that massive objects caused a distortion in space-time. Imagine setting a large body in the center of a trampoline. The body would press down into the fabric, causing it to dimple. A marble rolled around the edge would spiral inward toward the body, pulled in much the same way that the gravity of a planet pulls at rocks in space."

#### totallackey

• 1245
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #72 on: August 27, 2019, 10:49:10 AM »
Quote
As I pointed out, posting a bunch of numbers that match observations is not an explanation, it is score keeping.

Here is a very simplified version of the Theory of Relativity.  It does much more than just throwing out numbers that match observations.  It explains why the numbers match the observations.  Relativity explains where the gravity comes from.

https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

A few quotes...

"In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

"Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another."

"As he worked out the equations for his general theory of relativity, Einstein realized that massive objects caused a distortion in space-time. Imagine setting a large body in the center of a trampoline. The body would press down into the fabric, causing it to dimple. A marble rolled around the edge would spiral inward toward the body, pulled in much the same way that the gravity of a planet pulls at rocks in space."
So, you are stating that "massive objects...," causing a "...distortion in space-time...," is the generator of terrestrial gravity?

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2405
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #73 on: August 27, 2019, 11:29:05 AM »
I don't know if RE needs to explain gravity or FE needs to explain UA.
Obviously it's nice if things can be explained but I can have a theory that rainbows occur when there's sunshine and rain without understanding the way light refracts and reflects through water drops to cause the effect.
From what I understand GE is our best model of how gravity works right now but the key thing here is whether UA is a better model than gravity?
Does it match observations better? Can it explain things better.
Both gravity and UA can explain why things fall. But UA doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
It doesn't explain the movements of the celestial bodies.
FE doesn't need to disprove gravity, but in order to be taken seriously it does need to propose a model which works better than it, and right now it doesn't seem to have done that.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### totallackey

• 1245
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #74 on: August 27, 2019, 12:23:42 PM »
I don't know if RE needs to explain gravity or FE needs to explain UA.
Obviously it's nice if things can be explained but I can have a theory that rainbows occur when there's sunshine and rain without understanding the way light refracts and reflects through water drops to cause the effect.
From what I understand GE is our best model of how gravity works right now but the key thing here is whether UA is a better model than gravity?
Does it match observations better? Can it explain things better.
Both gravity and UA can explain why things fall. But UA doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
It doesn't explain the movements of the celestial bodies.
FE doesn't need to disprove gravity, but in order to be taken seriously it does need to propose a model which works better than it, and right now it doesn't seem to have done that.
I am unsure if gravity explains why there are variations of gravity.

I mean, it goes on about supposedly different spin times in different locations, but this would mean that spin is somehow causal for the whole process and that is established...nowhere...

#### rpt

• 19
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #75 on: August 27, 2019, 12:43:55 PM »
I am unsure if gravity explains why there are variations of gravity.
Gravity varies across the earth's surface due to different distance (e.g. at altitude) from the centre of mass of the earth and due to different densities of the rock.

#### Zonk

• 71
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #76 on: August 27, 2019, 01:01:53 PM »
If earth were a smooth (no elevation differences to speak of), homogeneous (same density throughout), perfect sphere, there would be no variations in g.  That fact that it is not, and there are (very small) variations in g is evidence that our current theory of gravity is more or less correct, not the other way around.  I am aware of no FE theory of gravity (or gravitational affect if you like) that fits observation.

#### pricelesspearl

• 44
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #77 on: August 27, 2019, 03:48:19 PM »
Quote
So, you are stating that "massive objects...," causing a "...distortion in space-time...," is the generator of terrestrial gravity?

I am not saying anything specific about the theory one way or another, just pointing out that it doesn’t “just throw out numbers”, but offers an explanation for numbers.  Yes, it does explain terrestrial gravity, but I ‘m interested into getting into the weeds of general relativity.  That’s not my point.

My point is that like it or not, GR is the most widely accepted theory of gravity at this point in time. It’s backed up with 100 years of research and supported by mathematics, physics and astronomy.  It has been verified hundreds, if not thousands of times by countless numbers of scientists all over the world in dozens of different ways.  FET claims it is incorrect, which is a perfectly legitimate position to take, provided you can back it up with science. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim.

FET makes no effort to meet that burden (where is the science, where is the data, where are the peer reviewed studies? ) and relies instead on the argument from ignorance, that RE gravity “cannot be proved”, therefore gravity could be caused by this, that or the other thing. That is a completely fallacious argument. It means nothing, much less prove anything.  Unless you can meet your burden of proof, you have no basis to claim that RE gravity is untrue…except your opinion. Opinions don’t count in science and opinions are not “The Truth”.

That being said, I would agree with AATW that FET doesn’t have to disprove RT gravity if the FET position was that RET gravity could be true, but for whatever reason, FET thinks its theory is better. However. that is not my understanding of the FET theory.  It is my understanding that FET position is that RET is not and cannot be true because it is incompatible with a flat earth.  If that understanding is correct, the burden of proof is on FET to substantiate the claim that it cannot be true. Just saying it is not true because it hasn’t been proven to your satisfaction is the very definition of a logical fallacy.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2405
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #78 on: August 28, 2019, 05:47:43 AM »
While we're here, gravity explains why the earth is round. It also explains why every celestial body we can observe (above a certain mass) is round.
This is yet another thing which gravity explains.
All UA "explains" is that things fall, and it doesn't even explain that as well as gravity - it doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
A new theory only replaces an old one when it does a better job of explaining observations or makes better predictions than the prevailing one.
I've yet to see any evidence that UA does that. It explains less things than gravity and it doesn't explain the one thing it does explain as accurately as gravity.
There's a reason it hasn't swept the scientific world and no-one has won a Nobel prize for "discovering" it yet.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9747
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #79 on: August 28, 2019, 10:45:28 AM »
All UA "explains" is that things fall, and it doesn't even explain that as well as gravity - it doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
You really need to work on your habit of repeating yourself. We already discussed this in this thread. You do not need to echo it over and over.

But does UA fix any of those problems?
That's irrelevant to the OP's question. Which, once again, is why I keep trying to get the OP to pursue something more productive.

And UA doesn’t account for the differences in gravity measures in different locations.
Not in a (figurative) vacuum, no. In other extremely thrilling news, gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue.