#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2018, 11:46:06 AM »
The fundamental problem with equivalence principle is, that it's only valid for homogeneous gravitational fields, which are equivalent to a constant acceleration. Real gravitational fields, i.e. fields originating in mass, are not homogeneous, and can only be replaced locally by an acceleration. The whole concept was introduced by Einstein to allow the use of special relativity at least on a local scale in a gravitational field before he invented the concept of general relativity.

Therefor inherently you have to come up with additional explanations outside the framework of general relativity if you want to use a concept like universal acceleration.

And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.

And, finally, it is not a god idea to use special relativity examples (constant velocity) to explain general relativity (constant acceleration) scenarios. It is misleading.

#### TomInAustin

• 1034
• Round Duh
##### Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2018, 06:50:54 PM »
The fundamental problem with equivalence principle is, that it's only valid for homogeneous gravitational fields, which are equivalent to a constant acceleration. Real gravitational fields, i.e. fields originating in mass, are not homogeneous, and can only be replaced locally by an acceleration. The whole concept was introduced by Einstein to allow the use of special relativity at least on a local scale in a gravitational field before he invented the concept of general relativity.

Therefor inherently you have to come up with additional explanations outside the framework of general relativity if you want to use a concept like universal acceleration.

And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.

And, finally, it is not a god idea to use special relativity examples (constant velocity) to explain general relativity (constant acceleration) scenarios. It is misleading.

More questions about this mysterious force that accelerates the earth.   What is it?  What is the source?  What is the medium the earth is in?  Is the force applied equally or is the earth structurally sound to have a central point the force is applied to?  Is it pushing or pulling?  Will it ever run out of energy?  Will the earth ever run out of space to accelerate in?
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### Stagiri

• 146
• You can call me Peter
##### Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2018, 07:43:25 PM »
(..)
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
(...)

Well, due to relativity, it's a bit more complicated.
From the perspective of an outside observer, as the speed of the Earth would approach the speed of light its acceleration would signifantly decrease. Thus the force/the energy would "only" approach infinity.
However, from our perspective, the acceleration wouldn't change and neither would the mass/the force/the energy. The FES actually got this right.

Nevertheless, UA cannot explain the non-homogeneity, such as the Eötvös effect and so on.
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

#### Macarios

##### Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2018, 09:11:10 PM »
Macarios, as far as I know, the FE people believe that they have addressed the different perceived accelerations around the Earth.

Their idea, and I may be a little wrong on it, is that UA + "celestial gravitation" (a leaky patch without even the slightest of quantifications) combine to produce the effects of gravity on Earth. So that's what keeps the Earth in one piece. The variations in altitude are caused by a reduction of the "shielding" effect, and the variations in latitude are magically fixed by a specially-designed "celestial gravitation" force.

Speaking of Celestial Gravitation, it inflicts force on what?
On objects with mass?
Or on objects selected by "celestial imaginary friend"?

We also have this:
Quote
Acceleration at the top of Mount Everest is 9.77015 m/s2.
Acceleration in Tampa is 9.79736 m/s2.
(from: http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=e856809e0d522d3153e2e7e8ec263bf2)
Mount Everest is at 27.98 degrees north, at 8848 meters above sea level.
Tampa, FL is also 27.98 degrees north, at 1 meter above sea level.

Moving closer to the source of the celestial gravitation above Mount Everest for 8847 meters makes the acceleration lower 1.002812649 times.
It means the distance was changed SQRT(1.002812649) = 1.001405337 times. Let's call it k.
Since (D-1) = (D-8848)*k it makes D = (8848*k-1) / (k-1) = 6 304 135 m from the sea level (6 305 km).
This is consistent with height of the Sun to be 5005 km.

On North pole and on Ice Wall g is 9.832 m/s2,
Knowing that, we can calculate the distance from celestial source to be 6304135 * SQRT(9.832 / 9.79736) = 6 315 270 m.
6 315 270 - 6 304 135 = 11 135
It means the North pole and Ice Wall are both 11 135 meters below sea level.
It is somewhere around the bottom of Mariana Trench.

Ok, now we have another question here.
Since the "dome rotates" above the Earth's surface, whatever configuration it has, it must be circular, similar to vinyl record, or Fresnel lens.
For example, above Mount Everest must be the same distance regardless of the angle of the "dome" above the Earth.
Same goes for Aconcagua, Rocky Mountains, Appalachians, Alps, Carpathians, and the rest of the Earth's surface.

However, instead of poles (North pole and Ice Wall) being at the depth of Mariana trench, center and edges of dome can be for those 11 135 m higher than the part above equator.
Now imagine simultaneous sky observation from multiple locations, permanently done not only by professional astronomers, but amateurs too.

About "Universe is accelerating with Earth", the claim only redefines "Universe" into "Local Universe".
(Changes focus of the meaning of the word.)
It doesn't eliminate the question "through what?".
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 09:28:11 PM by Macarios »

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #44 on: April 26, 2018, 08:29:12 AM »
(..)
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
(...)

Well, due to relativity, it's a bit more complicated.
From the perspective of an outside observer, as the speed of the Earth would approach the speed of light its acceleration would signifantly decrease. Thus the force/the energy would "only" approach infinity.
However, from our perspective, the acceleration wouldn't change and neither would the mass/the force/the energy. The FES actually got this right.

Nevertheless, UA cannot explain the non-homogeneity, such as the Eötvös effect and so on.

I think I already mentioned, that of course from the earths point of view, you would not notice the changes, but if you think about the plausibility of the whole concept of universal acceleration, you have to look from the reference frame in which you see the force acting on the earth. And an observer in that reference frame would see an almost infinite force acting on the earth. And that doesn't make any sense at all.

No one of them got it right, cause they're only looking at half of the story.

That would be like saying I don't care of the energy consumption of a big particle accelerator cause the particles don't feel their increase of mass. From the point of view of the accelerator the energy consumption is real. The same is true from the point of view of whatever is pushing the earth...

##### Re: Question from a physicist
« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2018, 09:54:10 PM »
(..)
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
(...)

Well, due to relativity, it's a bit more complicated.
From the perspective of an outside observer, as the speed of the Earth would approach the speed of light its acceleration would signifantly decrease. Thus the force/the energy would "only" approach infinity.
However, from our perspective, the acceleration wouldn't change and neither would the mass/the force/the energy. The FES actually got this right.

Nevertheless, UA cannot explain the non-homogeneity, such as the Eötvös effect and so on.

I think I already mentioned, that of course from the earths point of view, you would not notice the changes, but if you think about the plausibility of the whole concept of universal acceleration, you have to look from the reference frame in which you see the force acting on the earth. And an observer in that reference frame would see an almost infinite force acting on the earth. And that doesn't make any sense at all.

No one of them got it right, cause they're only looking at half of the story.

That would be like saying I don't care of the energy consumption of a big particle accelerator cause the particles don't feel their increase of mass. From the point of view of the accelerator the energy consumption is real. The same is true from the point of view of whatever is pushing the earth...

The problem is that FES asserts that there isn't a reference frame where you can actually see the truly massive Earth's acceleration, since if you sit "behind" Earth, you're not shielded as much from UA so you travel along with it.

But as I think about it more, perhaps when you're in free fall, you may be able to make the energy argument, since it's really hard to argue that the ground is accelerating toward you (for what reason?). I'll have to read up more on general relativity for that one, but I believe that if you're in free fall, your proper acceleration is 0, but the ground is moving toward you at an increasing rate, so you must conclude that you're under the influence of gravity or that the ground is magically accelerating toward you.