[GiantTurtle]

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

[Tom Bishop]

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

Going below the earth's surface is still going further from the sky.

[Curious Squirrel]

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

Going below the earth's surface is still going further from the sky.

What an astute observation. But it doesn't explain why 'gravity' is less when you go underground, rather than more as is suggested by how celestial gravitation explains lower gravity at greater heights.

[StinkyOne]

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

Going below the earth's surface is still going further from the sky.

Can you elaborate on this? Not sure what the sky has to do with UA.

[Tom Bishop]

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

Going below the earth's surface is still going further from the sky.

What an astute observation. But it doesn't explain why 'gravity' is less when you go underground, rather than more as is suggested by how celestial gravitation explains lower gravity at greater heights.

This is false. Gravity actually increases as you descend. There are numerous RET excuses for why this is so, but the fact remains that gravity increases below the earth's surface.

Introduction to Physical Oceanography: Third Edition

Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Water-Bearing Deposits in Subsiding Areas in Central California

http://www.exo.net/ti/pinhole/hypermail-00/0064.html

But in the real earth which is denser at the center the
force of gravity actually increases with depth at least down to the depth
of the deepest mines.

[xenotolerance]

If the earth is spherically symmetric, then its density ρρ only depends on the radial coordinate, and the gravitational field at any radial coordinate is given by

g(r)=Gr2∫r04πr′2dr′ρ(r′)
g(r)=Gr2∫0r4πr′2dr′ρ(r′)
where the integral gives the mass inside the sphere of radius rr. The average density within the sphere is just the mass divided by the volume, so

<ρ>=∫r04πr′2dr′ρ(r′)4πr33
<ρ>=∫0r4πr′2dr′ρ(r′)4πr33
We then take the derivative of the first equation:

g′(r)=4πGρ(r)−2Gr3∫r04πr′2dr′ρ(r′)
g′(r)=4πGρ(r)−2Gr3∫0r4πr′2dr′ρ(r′)
Setting this to zero and doing a little bit of algebra yields the result, ρ(r)=23<ρ>ρ(r)=23<ρ>.

Near the surface of the earth the local density is actually a little less than that, so the gravitational field actually gets a little stronger as you go down until you're really quite deep.

Regardless, universal acceleration wouldn't have any change at all depending on altitude. If you are in the front or back seat of a car that accelerates, you feel the same force. So, Tom has provided evidence for us that universal acceleration cannot adequately explain empirical observations.

[Tom Bishop]

Regardless, universal acceleration wouldn't have any change at all depending on altitude. If you are in the front or back seat of a car that accelerates, you feel the same force. So, Tom has provided evidence for us that universal acceleration cannot adequately explain empirical observations.

We are talking about Celestial Gravitation. Please follow along.

[xenotolerance]

I'm surprised you responded negatively. You did exactly what I wrote - UA can't adequately explain these changes, and it requires celestial gravitation to fill in. So the answer to the thread topic is, "UA can't explain it, and you have to look elsewhere."

[StinkyOne]

Regardless, universal acceleration wouldn't have any change at all depending on altitude. If you are in the front or back seat of a car that accelerates, you feel the same force. So, Tom has provided evidence for us that universal acceleration cannot adequately explain empirical observations.

We are talking about Celestial Gravitation. Please follow along.

Can you explain what the heck it and how it works?? The wiki has very little on the topic and it just seems like something that was made up to make a FE work with stellar observations.

[Tom Bishop]

Regardless, universal acceleration wouldn't have any change at all depending on altitude. If you are in the front or back seat of a car that accelerates, you feel the same force. So, Tom has provided evidence for us that universal acceleration cannot adequately explain empirical observations.

We are talking about Celestial Gravitation. Please follow along.

Can you explain what the heck it and how it works?? The wiki has very little on the topic and it just seems like something that was made up to make a FE work with stellar observations.

It is discussed in the forum archives between this site and the other one, and in the wiki. You can do your own research.

[StinkyOne]

Regardless, universal acceleration wouldn't have any change at all depending on altitude. If you are in the front or back seat of a car that accelerates, you feel the same force. So, Tom has provided evidence for us that universal acceleration cannot adequately explain empirical observations.

We are talking about Celestial Gravitation. Please follow along.

Can you explain what the heck it and how it works?? The wiki has very little on the topic and it just seems like something that was made up to make a FE work with stellar observations.

It is discussed in the forum archives between this site and the other one, and in the wiki. You can do your own research.

But see, that's the problem - there is no research. Google it and the first link that pops up is your useless Wiki. Beyond that, not much. So, like I said, it's a made up idea to "fix" obvious problems with FET.

[xenotolerance]

the google results in question

the first result is the wiki page on it

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

its talk page is empty

Searching the forum here directly yields one page of results, mostly dissenters speculating about what it isasking what it is and being told to look it up (I read the results more closely, this doesn't usually happen). I can't search the other site without signing up, which I do not want to do.

Research findings do indicate there isn't much to the idea. Is it similar to Newtonian gravity? If it is, why doesn't the mass of the Earth have gravitation? Does general relativity hold for celestial gravitation, as it does for Newtonian gravity? What empirical evidence has been observed for celestial gravitation, poorly defined as it is?

I have looked for answers to these questions, and found none, only excuses for not having answers. It is therefore fair to describe it as a 'fix' for UA, given UA's shortcomings established in this thread.

[Tom Bishop]

But see, that's the problem - there is no research. Google it and the first link that pops up is your useless Wiki. Beyond that, not much. So, like I said, it's a made up idea to "fix" obvious problems with FET.

Keep googling.

the google results in question

the first result is the wiki page on it

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

its talk page is empty

Searching the forum here directly yields one page of results, mostly dissenters speculating about what it isasking what it is and being told to look it up (I read the results more closely, this doesn't usually happen). I can't search the other site without signing up, which I do not want to do.

Research findings do indicate there isn't much to the idea. Is it similar to Newtonian gravity? If it is, why doesn't the mass of the Earth have gravitation? Does general relativity hold for celestial gravitation, as it does for Newtonian gravity? What empirical evidence has been observed for celestial gravitation, poorly defined as it is?

I have looked for answers to these questions, and found none, only excuses for not having answers. It is therefore fair to describe it as a 'fix' for UA, given UA's shortcomings established in this thread.

From your research it appears that you now know what Celestial Gravitation is. Congratulations.

Per your follow up questions, if you can't find the answer to your questions upon further research then it means that the matter has not been discussed/is unknown.

[xenotolerance]

christ dude you are super condescending today

Anyway, you're suggesting that the reason gravity is weaker inside a mineshaft is unknown: If it's because of celestial gravitation, which 'has not been discussed' to a satisfactory degree, then it's because of 'unknown' causes. Or at least, there has been no discussed empirical evidence for it, probably because there isn't any.

If your model doesn't have an answer to some question, it's fine to acknowledge that the question is unanswered, instead of inserting unknown, untested ideas in and saying "This is why." See Newton:

I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

[StinkyOne]

But see, that's the problem - there is no research. Google it and the first link that pops up is your useless Wiki. Beyond that, not much. So, like I said, it's a made up idea to "fix" obvious problems with FET.

Keep googling.

the google results in question

the first result is the wiki page on it

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

its talk page is empty

Searching the forum here directly yields one page of results, mostly dissenters speculating about what it isasking what it is and being told to look it up (I read the results more closely, this doesn't usually happen). I can't search the other site without signing up, which I do not want to do.

Research findings do indicate there isn't much to the idea. Is it similar to Newtonian gravity? If it is, why doesn't the mass of the Earth have gravitation? Does general relativity hold for celestial gravitation, as it does for Newtonian gravity? What empirical evidence has been observed for celestial gravitation, poorly defined as it is?

I have looked for answers to these questions, and found none, only excuses for not having answers. It is therefore fair to describe it as a 'fix' for UA, given UA's shortcomings established in this thread.

From your research it appears that you now know what Celestial Gravitation is. Congratulations.

Per your follow up questions, if you can't find the answer to your questions upon further research then it means that the matter has not been discussed/is unknown.

We know what it is....BS.  At this point, why even use the term Zetetic - the method isn't being applied. Clearly, beyond someone writing some sciencey-sounding stuff in a wiki, celestial gravitation has no basis in reality. Earlier in this thread you kindly pointed out that gravity was stronger in a mine shaft due to the increased density of the surrounding Earth. Hard to imagine that being possible in a UA environ where the acceleration would affect everything equally.

[Tom Bishop]

We know what it is....BS.  At this point, why even use the term Zetetic - the method isn't being applied. Clearly, beyond someone writing some sciencey-sounding stuff in a wiki, celestial gravitation has no basis in reality.

The interpretation of the Universal Accelerator is empirical. Celestial Gravitation is a consequence of that.

Earlier in this thread you kindly pointed out that gravity was stronger in a mine shaft due to the increased density of the surrounding Earth. Hard to imagine that being possible in a UA environ where the acceleration would affect everything equally.

Actually, RET predicts that gravity should get lower with increased depth. UA-CG predicts that gravity should increase.

[xenotolerance]

No, they aren't empirical.

Universal acceleration is theoretical. It is a proposed model intended to explain why things fall down.

This theory fails to predict changing acceleration in certain conditions, such as in mineshafts, and celestial gravitation is conjecture intended to explain the gap.

Neither one has been measured, by anyone, ever.

also... your last point has already been addressed in the stackexchange thread that I linked, higher up in this thread. Because the Earth is not uniformly dense, Newtonian gravity does predict that gravity will increase at shallow altitudes below sea level, on the scale of mine shafts.

[Tom Bishop]

No, they aren't empirical.

Universal acceleration is theoretical. It is a proposed model intended to explain why things fall down.

This theory fails to predict changing acceleration in certain conditions, such as in mineshafts, and celestial gravitation is conjecture.

Neither one has been measured, by anyone, ever.

Incorrect. We can see the earth accelerating upwards by simply standing on a chair and walking off of its edge. We can SEE the mechanical motion of an upwardly accelerating earth. THAT is empirical.

The Quantum Mechanics/General Relativity ideas of undiscovered "graviton" particles and invisible bending space pulling me to the earth are NOT seen, not by any man, machine, or experiment, and are decidedly NOT empirical.

Therefore, the empirical explanation is that the earth is rising upwards and all other phenomena are interpreted as a consequence of that.

[xenotolerance]

You aren't using empirical correctly, nor consistently.

Observing things fall down is indeed an empirical observation. It does not follow that any given explanation for the observed phenomena is empirical: I walked off a chair, therefore I observed empirically that by walking I move the entire universe around me. (obviously wrong, no?) Or, I threw a baseball and it fell to Earth, therefore baseballs have inherent properties that guide them to their correct resting altitude when thrown. It must be true, as I observed it empirically.

You see the problem. Empirical observations are not the same as the theories that explain them. UA is a theory, it is not empirical.

Gravitons and invisible space, sure, also not empirical. Newton's gravity and general relativity and quantum gravity are theories, intended to predict how and why things happen. That they do so consistently and correctly makes them good theories. UA fails to correctly predict certain observations, which makes it a bad theory. Asserting that celestial gravitation is responsible for those changes is conjecture: There is no actual theory given, no attempt to explain. It's just, CG does it. Conjecture.

Now, I remember you participating in a thread about the detection of gravitational waves. That is an example of empirical observation, and it is relevant to point out the observations made were consistent with general relativity, but not with universal acceleration. So, GR has more support from empirical evidence, and is a better theory overall.

But we're getting off topic. I think the question has been thoroughly answered by now.

[StinkyOne]

No, they aren't empirical.

Universal acceleration is theoretical. It is a proposed model intended to explain why things fall down.

This theory fails to predict changing acceleration in certain conditions, such as in mineshafts, and celestial gravitation is conjecture.

Neither one has been measured, by anyone, ever.

Incorrect. We can see the earth accelerating upwards by simply standing on a chair and walking off of its edge. We can SEE the mechanical motion of an upwardly accelerating earth. THAT is empirical.

The Quantum Mechanics/General Relativity ideas of undiscovered "graviton" particles and invisible bending space pulling me to the earth are NOT seen, not by any man, machine, or experiment, and are decidedly NOT empirical.

Therefore, the empirical explanation is that the earth is rising upwards and all other phenomena are interpreted as a consequence of that.

This is just so funny. Tom, what magical force is propelling the Earth? If it is accelerating upwards, why haven't we run into the sun and moon (and stars)? How does it maintain such a steady force?

Empiricism is fine to a point, but it can only go so far. Have you ever empirically detected a radio wave? Me either. By your logic, radios should work because somewhere that is a really long string with a paper cup at each end to transmit the vibrations. We know that the visual portion of the electromagnetic spectrum is pretty small and yet we use it to great affect in communications, medicine, heck, we even use it to warm up our food.