#### Curious Sceptic

• 3
##### FE Gravity
« on: September 30, 2019, 07:03:52 PM »
Hey Guys,
I'd like to ask You how gravity is supposed to work in FE model? And by gravity I mean the fact that all objects fall 'down' with a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (if we don't take friction into account that is) and that independently of their mass.
I tried looking around for answers but all of them are either unclear, false or contradict each other or even themselves...
Could You help?

#### TomInAustin

• 967
• Round Duh
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2019, 06:49:59 PM »
Hey Guys,
I'd like to ask You how gravity is supposed to work in FE model? And by gravity I mean the fact that all objects fall 'down' with a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (if we don't take friction into account that is) and that independently of their mass.
I tried looking around for answers but all of them are either unclear, false or contradict each other or even themselves...
Could You help?

Try the wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Nothing Thork has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Thork's own delusions opinions.

#### Curious Sceptic

• 3
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2019, 07:09:46 PM »
Hey Guys,
I'd like to ask You how gravity is supposed to work in FE model? And by gravity I mean the fact that all objects fall 'down' with a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (if we don't take friction into account that is) and that independently of their mass.
I tried looking around for answers but all of them are either unclear, false or contradict each other or even themselves...
Could You help?

Try the wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Ehh, What's the point of replying if You don't answer the question?
That's why I asked for someone to explain it to me. As I said previously, I looked up the wiki and I found the explanation lacking if not to say completely wrong. They butchered Lorenz's equations and seem to not take into account that in order to accelerate constantly in a direction we would need not only a constant energy source but an INCREASING energy source as required energy in order to keep accelerating would eventually tend towards infinity. They don't even mention why this 'dark energy' would be increasing the first place.
The other model, that Davis thingy is even worse!! The resulting gravitation would be directed vertically only directly over the center of mass of the disk which is only one point. Everywhere else we would have gravity coming from the side which would result in a world in which the farther you are away from the centre, more the gravity is directed horizontally...
Thank You anyway...
Can anyone else help?

#### TomInAustin

• 967
• Round Duh
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2019, 07:18:19 PM »
Hey Guys,
I'd like to ask You how gravity is supposed to work in FE model? And by gravity I mean the fact that all objects fall 'down' with a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (if we don't take friction into account that is) and that independently of their mass.
I tried looking around for answers but all of them are either unclear, false or contradict each other or even themselves...
Could You help?

Try the wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Ehh, What's the point of replying if You don't answer the question?
That's why I asked for someone to explain it to me. As I said previously, I looked up the wiki and I found the explanation lacking if not to say completely wrong. They butchered Lorenz's equations and seem to not take into account that in order to accelerate constantly in a direction we would need not only a constant energy source but an INCREASING energy source as required energy in order to keep accelerating would eventually tend towards infinity. They don't even mention why this 'dark energy' would be increasing the first place.
The other model, that Davis thingy is even worse!! The resulting gravitation would be directed vertically only directly over the center of mass of the disk which is only one point. Everywhere else we would have gravity coming from the side which would result in a world in which the farther you are away from the centre, more the gravity is directed horizontally...
Thank You anyway...
Can anyone else help?
I didn't say I believed it, the exact opposite is true.
Nothing Thork has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Thork's own delusions opinions.

#### BillO

• 581
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2019, 11:07:13 PM »
... that in order to accelerate constantly in a direction we would need not only a constant energy source but an INCREASING energy source ...
This is not true.  From the perspective of the accelerating FoR (like the flat earth and it's environs), to accelerate at a constant rate the accelerating force needs to be constant.  However, it does require a constant supply of energy ... forever.  And a lot too, as apparently not only the entire earth is accelerating, but the whole observable universe.  There is a lot wrong with UA, but the need for an increasing force is not one of them.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Curious Sceptic

• 3
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2019, 09:00:02 AM »
... that in order to accelerate constantly in a direction we would need not only a constant energy source but an INCREASING energy source ...
This is not true.  From the perspective of the accelerating FoR (like the flat earth and it's environs), to accelerate at a constant rate the accelerating force needs to be constant.

When your speed reaches 1/10 C you can observe relativistic effects and one of them is seeming increase in mass which in turn makes the force required to keep constant acceleration increase too (F = am).

However, it does require a constant supply of energy ... forever.  And a lot too, as apparently not only the entire earth is accelerating, but the whole observable universe.  There is a lot wrong with UA, but the need for an increasing force is not one of them.

I didn't think of it but yeah, it would require to accelerate everything around us or we would have a huge blueshift everywhere...
Does anyone have a working model then?

#### BillO

• 581
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2019, 12:33:09 PM »
When your speed reaches 1/10 C you can observe relativistic effects and one of them is seeming increase in mass which in turn makes the force required to keep constant acceleration increase too (F = am).
Given a constant force accelerating you, you won't observe an increase in your mass.  However, a person with respect to whom your velocity is measured will see an increase in your mass.  Also, due to the Lorentz contraction along your line of flight, they will see your rulers (displacement measurement) shrink.  They will conclude that you will not measure any change in acceleration since they know that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, which itself is the rate of change of displacement.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### iamcpc

• 726
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2019, 08:36:02 PM »
When your speed reaches 1/10 C you can observe relativistic effects and one of them is seeming increase in mass which in turn makes the force required to keep constant acceleration increase too (F = am).
Given a constant force accelerating you, you won't observe an increase in your mass.  However, a person with respect to whom your velocity is measured will see an increase in your mass.  Also, due to the Lorentz contraction along your line of flight, they will see your rulers (displacement measurement) shrink.  They will conclude that you will not measure any change in acceleration since they know that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, which itself is the rate of change of displacement.

I've been thinking about this. I can sense acceleration. I can feel it. If the car is accelerating I can feel the acceleration. On an airplane I can feel the acceleration. I can feel the thing that i'm on or in actively increasing it's velocity. Even when traveling vertically like on a slingshot or amusement park ride I can feel the change in my velocity. As I'm sitting in my desk I don't fee any change in my velocity. Is this planetary level acceleration different somehow so that it's undetectable?

#### BillO

• 581
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2019, 10:06:44 PM »
As I'm sitting in my desk I don't fee any change in my velocity.
Right, because you are not changing velocity, but a force (some of us call it gravity) is certainly holding you down in your chair.  Just the same as if you were sitting in the seat of a rocket out in interstellar space accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/(s^2).

Is this planetary level acceleration different somehow so that it's undetectable?
I'll be darned if I know.  I am not a proponent of this UA thing.  To us I imagine it would feel a lot like gravity, however the energy needed to sustain accelerating the whole universe would be staggering even for a micro second, let alone all eternity.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10453
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2019, 05:52:04 AM »
I've been thinking about this. I can sense acceleration. I can feel it. If the car is accelerating I can feel the acceleration. On an airplane I can feel the acceleration. I can feel the thing that i'm on or in actively increasing it's velocity.
You can also feel your weight. Remember that UA is largely equivalent to the gravitational model you consider more intuitive, so your question can well be rephrased of "why don't I feel gravity in RET?"

The answer is simple: You absolutely do feel it, but it's also your "default" state - it's something you've felt your entire life and grown accustomed to. Not feeling it would mean experiencing weightlessness, which you'd likely find remarkable.

Is this planetary level acceleration different somehow so that it's undetectable?
It's entirely detectable. You can pick up a cheap accelerometer and detect it with little effort. And, again, all that "detecting" it entails is realising your weight. You're not currently weightless (I presume you're actually on Earth, and not indefinitely falling in a vacuum - apologies if I'm mistaken about your circumstances), ergo you've already detected your weight/UA.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 05:55:53 AM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### somerled

• 197
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2019, 10:55:52 AM »
As I'm sitting in my desk I don't fee any change in my velocity.
Right, because you are not changing velocity, but a force (some of us call it gravity) is certainly holding you down in your chair.  Just the same as if you were sitting in the seat of a rocket out in interstellar space accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/(s^2).

I would say that velocity is constantly changing when sitting in a chair on a rotating earth . Velocity is a vector quantity , it has magnitude and direction . But we never sense this acceleration , which itself must be constantly changing  . Doesn't make sense to me .

UA on flat earth , the force acts down towards the plane - this is measured quite easily and its effects can be predicted using kinetics and ballistics. I might be wrong here because I've not really looked into it but that's a much better fit than the gravity ( through attraction of mass by unknown means ) theory .

Complicated for sure .

#### BillO

• 581
• Huh?
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2019, 11:59:35 AM »
I would say that velocity is constantly changing when sitting in a chair on a rotating earth . Velocity is a vector quantity , it has magnitude and direction . But we never sense this acceleration , which itself must be constantly changing  . Doesn't make sense to me .
Yes, on a rotating planet there will be a force created by the rotation.  However, this is minuscule.  Only about .034 m/(s ^2) at the equator and in the direction directly opposite to gravity, and it's constant.  Less than 1/3 of one percent the gravitational force at the equator, and less elsewhere. So how would you feel it?  As for the force of acceleration due to our orbit around the sun, which actually does change as the earth rotates, that is less than 0.0059m/(s^2) at a maximum and changing slowly over 24 hours.  Do you honestly think you could feel that?

UA on flat earth , the force acts down towards the plane - this is measured quite easily and its effects can be predicted using kinetics and ballistics. I might be wrong here because I've not really looked into it but that's a much better fit than the gravity ( through attraction of mass by unknown means ) theory .
So, we are all okay with the problem of the energy involved?  If the entire universe was only the mass of the RE, then it would take about 8x10^19 kilowatt hours of energy every second.  That is about 4 billion times the total energy used on the earth every year.   So, acceleration due to insane amounts of energy from unknown means.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 12:23:57 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

#### pricelesspearl

• 144
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2019, 01:33:08 PM »
Quote
UA on flat earth , the force acts down towards the plane - this is measured quite easily and its effects can be predicted using kinetics and ballistics. I might be wrong here because I've not really looked into it but that's a much better fit than the gravity ( through attraction of mass by unknown means ) theory .

What force, other than the normal force would be acting down towards the plane?  The normal force is a contact force and would only come into play when something is in actual contact with the surface.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 01:39:01 PM by pricelesspearl »

#### katrex

• 4
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2019, 02:21:59 AM »
this brings up an important point...

Why does the universal force act in different amounts on different objects?  If I drop a 1kg and a 10kg ball off the ground. They are both falling towards the earth. So clearly the universal force is not acting on them but is acting on the earth. But if I dig its not acting on the earth underneath me. is there a big metal plate at the bottom of the earth that the universal force acts on?

it also seems to act on random satellites, the moon, the sun, and they seem to accelerate the same amount. Are all objects in the universe that accelerate equally massive? When an asteroid hits the earth, does the force automatically increase to maintain the constant acceleration? How is it regulated?

The more I think about it the more confusing it gets? is all of nutonian physics wrong?

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 208
• That's no beaver
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2019, 07:41:35 PM »
in order to accelerate constantly in a direction we would need not only a constant energy source but an INCREASING energy source as required energy in order to keep accelerating would eventually tend towards infinity.
Someone needs to take another look at their 'Introduction to Relativity' notes
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### TomInAustin

• 967
• Round Duh
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2019, 04:02:33 PM »
this brings up an important point...

Why does the universal force act in different amounts on different objects?  If I drop a 1kg and a 10kg ball off the ground. They are both falling towards the earth.

Not that I think UA is real but if it was drag from the air would act just like it does with reality.
Nothing Thork has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Thork's own delusions opinions.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6673
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2019, 04:11:12 PM »
I'm under the impression that there are only a few experiments which are actually put forward as evidence for the universal attraction of mass. Most other experiments say that the Equivalence Principle holds.

See https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
« Last Edit: November 15, 2019, 08:45:17 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 208
• That's no beaver
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2019, 05:43:32 PM »
I'm under the impression that there are only a few experiments which are actually put forward as evidence for the universal attraction of mass.
I think this is kind of true, but the few experiments that do exist are all pretty consistent so there's no incentive to provide further evidence. Add on to that the fact that there's really no viable alternative and you end up with where we are now: who's going to be interested in doing this experiment?
A professor isn't going to be interested in this - they'd rather do some physics that's new (unless they're a hardcore globie)
A funding body isn't going to be interested in this - it's not new or exciting

It's kind of a sad reality of science, but there's limited money and physicists that would rather be doing something interesting. The Scientific Method is a pure and perfect ideal that's implemented by primates.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### pricelesspearl

• 144
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2019, 08:23:15 PM »
Quote
I'm under the impression that there are only a few experiments which are actually put forward as evidence for the universal attraction of mass. Most other experiments say that the the Equivalence Principle holds.

That's because the Equivalence Principle and by extension, General Relativity, account for the attraction of masses.  It's a bit disingenuous to claim that gravity doesn't exist because the EP says that it is indistinguishable from acceleration, when the whole point of GR is that gravity and acceleration are the same thing.

#### AnApphysicstudent

• 5
##### Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2019, 07:54:28 PM »
this brings up an important point...

Why does the universal force act in different amounts on different objects?  If I drop a 1kg and a 10kg ball off the ground. They are both falling towards the earth. So clearly the universal force is not acting on them but is acting on the earth. But if I dig its not acting on the earth underneath me. is there a big metal plate at the bottom of the earth that the universal force acts on?

it also seems to act on random satellites, the moon, the sun, and they seem to accelerate the same amount. Are all objects in the universe that accelerate equally massive? When an asteroid hits the earth, does the force automatically increase to maintain the constant acceleration? How is it regulated?

The more I think about it the more confusing it gets? is all of nutonian physics wrong?

So what you dont understand is why objects of different mass have the same acceleration under gravity. The thing is gravity acts on an atomic level which means it pulls every atom down towards the center of the earth, every atom in the object gets acted on by gravity equally. This is why the difference in mass does not effect the acceleration due to gtavity. To put it simply, (if air resistance is negligble) if you drop an 2 object of equal mass of lets say 1 kg, they would fall with the same acceleration,  now if you have 3 object of mass 1 kg and drop them all at the same time, again they would all fall with the same acceleration. Now if merge 10 of the 1 kg mass together, they would fall with the same acceleration as the 1 kg mass because all 10 of the 1 kg mass gets the same acceleration.  In terms of math, (acceleration due to gravity is 10 to keep it simple) if you drop a 1 kg mass using F=M A  F=1×10  F=10 so the weight is 10N for every kg, if the mass is 10kg F=10×10 = 100N, the weight is 100N, which is equal to the weight of 10 1kg weight. Hence I claim that gravity act on every object equally.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 08:01:22 PM by AnApphysicstudent »