Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2017, 01:42:46 AM »
Quote
authority of "regular people"

I don't know what you are talking about there. I asked the question if anyone observing an object falling to the ground believes, that actually, the ground flew up to the object. It's a simple question, I think the answer is no. If you disagree, say you think the answer is yes.

I find it interesting how you have to twist and turn every response into a different direction.

But as to what was taught in school, pretty much everything FE here was proved wrong in my 6th grade astronomy class. But I don't recall any actual lessons where they conspired to brainwash us into thinking stuff fell to the ground.

This is really getting silly.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2017, 01:47:16 AM »
Quote
authority of "regular people"

I don't know what you are talking about there. I asked the question if anyone observing an object falling to the ground believes, that actually, the ground flew up to the object. It's a simple question, I think the answer is no. If you disagree, say you think the answer is yes.

I find it interesting how you have to twist and turn every response into a different direction.

But as to what was taught in school, pretty much everything FE here was proved wrong in my 6th grade astronomy class. But I don't recall any actual lessons where they conspired to brainwash us into thinking stuff fell to the ground.

This is really getting silly.

There is no twisting and turning. You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something. The fallacy of your argument is apparent to all.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2017, 03:28:54 AM »

You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something.
I am asking you and anyone reading this a question about their experience in seeing things fall. I'm completely lost how that is an appeal to authority, or to what authority I am appealing. Don't think it matters at this point, just saying I don't understand your point.

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2017, 06:35:15 AM »
Both are empirical observations. What's pulling you down? Don't know, can't see it. What's pushing the Earth up? Don't know, can't see it

They are not both equal. We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover. The question of what moves the mover is unknown, but we can at least say what we see the mechanical action of the mover directly. We can also say that the phenomenon of pushing and accelerating of matter are known concepts in physics.

For the invisible pulling theories we have no evidence of a mover at all, and so we are unable to ask what moves the mover. It is a more mysterious explanation, and one which has no physical analogues in the real world. We have plenty of experiences of being pushed, not many of being pulled. By a priori reasoning it is the weaker explanation.
But we have no evidence of the Earth moving upwards that isn't of the same empirical nature as us being brought to Earth. Friction is a 'pulling force' in many respects, as is inertia. Everything has a force that works to pull whenever it's pushed. A car can be said to be pulling itself along the road as well, since it works via friction.

We are the one moving. Plenty of evidence of a mover there, with just as little evidence of what is doing the pulling as we have of what is doing the pushing. As for no analogues, you've never been pulled along behind someone/something? Never seen someone riding the wake behind a boat before? That seems unlikely Tom. I also don't believe we're discussing theoretical here, so I'm not sure what a priori has to do with anything. We're discussing empirical evidence, something you zetetics claim you're all about. I can pull you as easily as I can push you.

The experience of being pulled behind a boat isn't in the same realm as the universal attraction of mass. Where are the little strings pulling the atoms?

We do, however, have direct experiences of the acceleration of objects. The acceleration of objects is a known phenomenon, possible through many chemical and physical means, and does not require a new branch of physics to work.
We don't know. Perhaps we can't see it since it's too small. Where's the energy pushing the Earth coming from? What's creating it? Once again you're breaking down one side as small as you can, and refusing to do so with the other.

What new branch of physics does a pulling force require? There's pulling forces all over. You're right, the acceleration of objects is well known, I'm simply accelerating you. Maybe it's the air pressing you down. Plenty of evidence air pushes down. That seems like a simple answer to me, far more so than an unknown and unobserved force accelerating the Earth.

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2017, 09:58:52 AM »
Quote
You could interpret the scenario either way; but you are still comparing the concepts of upward acceleration, which is possible with known physics, to a mysterious force of nature, which requires new physics.

For someone who likes the idea of a flat earth, you do seem to prefer your logic circular :)

Tell you what: you show me a piece of matter that exhibits these 'known physics' of upward acceleration. I mean, if 'the earth' is doing it, then presumably you can find a piece of the earth somewhere which, when lifted off the ground, doesn't get caught up by the rest.

Meanwhile, I'll track down a magnet. Ready? Go!

There's also the tiny wrinkle that the earth is demonstrably spherical (I refer you to my earlier experiment), and thus can't be accelerating in all directions at once.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 01:32:40 PM by JocelynSachs »

*

Offline Mora

  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2017, 10:24:14 PM »

The theory of gravitons for the mechanism of gravity can be proven by deriving a test that will allow us to observe gravitons. Dropping a ball and observing that it is accelerated to the earth at the rate graviton theory predicts is not a proof of graviton theory. A true test of the mechanism is required.


In principle, it is impossible to observe individual gravitons directly, we can only measure their effects. The way that you would "observe" gravitons is essentially the equivalent of dropping a ball. It's as if the universe won't let you observe the mechanism, but that's okay. You don't need to know what the mechanism is in the sense that you don't need to be able to envision in your head how gravitons function, just that they do. You can have a vision of an imaginary gravity fairy if it helps you think about gravity, but know that that's only an aid to understanding. If the mechanism is truly unobservable, then any discussion on the matter is inherently not scientific.


Gravity predicted that galaxies should spin faster at the middle than the edges, yet they spin as solid disks.

Gravity predicted that the universe should be decelerating due  to the the gravitational attraction of matter in the universe, yet it is accelerating.

Gravity predicted that the planet Neptune should have been far larger and in a far different place than where it was discovered.

I don't really want to go down this rabbit hole, but as we've seen from countless recently discovered exoplanets, we don't know nearly as much about how planets form as we thought we do.

I think we are getting too far from the original question.

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

But I don't want to seem like I'm dodging questions. Science refers to this phenomena as dark matter / energy. It's simply an unknown. It may be a force all its own, it's probably a type of non-linearity correction for gravity. This doesn't mean that gravity is fundamentally wrong, it just means that our model isn't accurate at larger scales, as we probably would have expected anyways, since we've only very recently been able to observe these large structures where gravity is non-linear. We didn't have any data to go on before, so essentially what we've done is extrapolate the trend we observed on the small scale to the universe at large. Now that we have the data and can see these inconsistencies, we're now able to work towards understanding and accounting for them in our model. It just takes a little time. Again, this doesn't mean that gravity is fundamentally wrong. After all, it works so well on the small scale. We've used it for nearly half a millennia, and only recently have had any sort of inkling that anything was amiss. Any correction will likely be a small detail in the math.
 
Anyways, my point was that having multiple theories for the same thing isn't necessarily conflicting. We also had 5 different String Theories until someone finally realized that they were all the same thing. And then when someone did realize that they were all the same thing, that strengthened the case for String Theory. Scientists are able to talk about gravity in different ways because the mechanism is unobservable. At least we think it is. If so, it makes no difference if its a particle or if gravity is just an intrinsic property of matter to bend spacetime. They give the same exact predictions. If they didn't, that is when we'd have a problem with our theory. But since they do and since we can't observe the mechanism, that's good enough for everyone else.

Your understanding of "a priori" is misguided. It is a term popularized by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism.

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

Quote
A priori and a posteriori

These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" (which must follow it).

I don't use words without knowing their meanings. Allow me to clarify. My use of a priori highlights the fact that you can't "prove" gravity in any epistemic sense. You can't write a proof on gravity. That's not how physics works, but that doesn't make it any less true.

There is no direct evidence that there is something small and invisible pulling things to the the ground, and no experiment has observed such a thing. If we go by pure priori reasoning, in fact, then we must conclude that the earth is rising upwards to cause this phenomenon.

See the above. We're not going by pure priori reasoning, because that's not physics. I've already said that, but it didn't seem to compute. If you limit yourself to priori reasoning, you will never be able to understand the universe in any great detail, and that prospect is personally upsetting.

If we step onto a chair and walk off of the edge and become inert while observing the surface of the earth carefully we see that the earth accelerates upwards to us. This is a direct observation of a mechanical action for gravity. We do not see anything pulling us down to the earth. The only observation from an inert position is that the earth is moving upwards. This is a strong empirical example for the mechanism of gravity.

In your frame of reference, the Earth is rises up to meet you, but in the Earth's frame, you fall down to meet it. What's so special about your frame of reference?

When standing upright we feel the earth pushing up upwards against our feet. If we pay attention we will feel that we are being pushed upwards by something. If we were take a baseball and and put it into an inert position by extending out our hand and releasing it into the air, we would see that we rise up with the earth to the level of the inert ball to meet it.

I've never observed that actually.

*

Offline Mora

  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2017, 10:33:23 PM »

You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something.
I am asking you and anyone reading this a question about their experience in seeing things fall. I'm completely lost how that is an appeal to authority, or to what authority I am appealing. Don't think it matters at this point, just saying I don't understand your point.

I do see his point, but like all of his other points, its only goal is distract you from the greater matter at hand. Perhaps he doesn't have anything else in his arsenal other than roadblocks and red tape such as these.

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2017, 04:39:11 AM »

You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something.
I am asking you and anyone reading this a question about their experience in seeing things fall. I'm completely lost how that is an appeal to authority, or to what authority I am appealing. Don't think it matters at this point, just saying I don't understand your point.

I do see his point, but like all of his other points, its only goal is distract you from the greater matter at hand. Perhaps he doesn't have anything else in his arsenal other than roadblocks and red tape such as these.
Agreed. From my time here most of the FE responses fall into a few categories. Redirect, cast doubt on other's proof while offering none, conspiracy, and ignore.

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2017, 06:02:33 PM »
Air resistance with the UA?

I keep reading that Gravity and UA are the same, but with UA, it is pushing on the atmosphere to create pressure. It cannot be pulling, but must be pushing on it to create barometric pressure. Is this correct?

(I am going somewhere with this, but need to make sure I somewhat understand UA and how it replaces Gravity as we experience it.)

*

Offline Tom Haws

  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Not Flat, Round, Ellipsoid, or Geoid. Just Earth.
    • View Profile
    • Tom Haws Interesting Random Discoveries
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2017, 06:05:42 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

If I were defending universal acceleration, I would reject the idea of linear kinetic acceleration, since that would imply a rather quick clash with the speed of light. That would leave me with centripetal kinetic acceleration, which implies that the flat earth is in orbit around the Anchor Object with the face of the earth toward the Anchor Object. Now all I need is an Anchor Force so that the earth can be a rock on a spinning string. Hmm. And this is the Occam's Razor thread. I am multiplying entities pretty freely.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 06:10:32 PM by Tom Haws »
Civil Engineer (professional mapper)

Thanks to Tom Bishop for his courtesy.

No flat map can predict commercial airline flight times among New York, Paris, Cape Town, & Buenos Aires.

The FAQ Sun animation does not work with sundials. And it has the equinox sun set toward Seattle (well N of NW) at my house in Mesa, AZ.

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2017, 06:19:55 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.

*

Offline Mora

  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2017, 06:31:15 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

If I were defending universal acceleration, I would reject the idea of linear kinetic acceleration, since that would imply a rather quick clash with the speed of light. That would leave me with centripetal kinetic acceleration, which implies that the flat earth is in orbit around the Anchor Object with the face of the earth toward the Anchor Object. Now all I need is an Anchor Force so that the earth can be a rock on a spinning string. Hmm. And this is the Occam's Razor thread. I am multiplying entities pretty freely.

Interesting. In your attempt to fix some of the inconsistencies, you make some concessions that put your flat earth model a few steps closer to the round earth model. Just an observation.

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2017, 06:59:10 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2017, 07:21:15 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically. 

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2017, 08:21:01 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

Is there something about the equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity that you just don’t understand?

You should also look up what “empirically” means, because it is obvious by your use of the term that you have no idea.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2017, 08:49:03 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

Is there something about the equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity that you just don’t understand?

You should also look up what “empirically” means, because it is obvious by your use of the term that you have no idea.

No junker, I have a great understanding of equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity. And, I fully understand what empirically means.

Our difference is I know gravity to exist, and that the earth is a globe. I do not need to make up theories that cannot be proved. Prove I am wrong. Prove to me that this UA would not cause the atmosphere to be heavier as more molecules were pushed into "dark matter" or "dark energy" in whatever lies above our atmosphere. Is this not where pressure would build up after 1000s of years of being pushed upward by UA. Same with water pressure. If it is being pushed up by the earth, would it not eventually have a greater pressure where it is being rammed into the atmosphere rather than it being heavier at the sea floor.

Prove to me how this does not happen.

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #56 on: December 06, 2017, 09:53:12 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

Is there something about the equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity that you just don’t understand?

You should also look up what “empirically” means, because it is obvious by your use of the term that you have no idea.

No junker, I have a great understanding of equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity. And, I fully understand what empirically means.

Our difference is I know gravity to exist, and that the earth is a globe. I do not need to make up theories that cannot be proved. Prove I am wrong. Prove to me that this UA would not cause the atmosphere to be heavier as more molecules were pushed into "dark matter" or "dark energy" in whatever lies above our atmosphere. Is this not where pressure would build up after 1000s of years of being pushed upward by UA. Same with water pressure. If it is being pushed up by the earth, would it not eventually have a greater pressure where it is being rammed into the atmosphere rather than it being heavier at the sea floor.

Prove to me how this does not happen.
How is it being 'rammed into the atmo' though? The water wants to stay still. The Earth is pushing it. The bottom of the water is also pushing all of the water between it and the edge of the atmo. Halfway up is pushing against only half of the water. The top of the water is only pushing against the air. Seriously, there is no difference we can discern or reason between UA and gravity, outside of UA needing an explanation for gravimetric differences. But pretending for a moment Earth's gravitational field is equal all over, you cannot tell a difference between the two.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #57 on: December 06, 2017, 10:01:25 PM »
Prove I am wrong. Prove to me that this UA would not cause the atmosphere to be heavier...

Prove to me how this does not happen.

Whew you roundies are all about the memes today. How many more ways can you say “prove me wrong?” Do you understand what is wrong with that?

If not, I’ll suggest you look into it. Don’t bother asking me to provide links as to where I learned about the burden of proof, please. That seems to be all the rage amongst your group today.

Take care!
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 05:12:51 PM by junker »
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #58 on: December 06, 2017, 10:43:25 PM »
My thinking as regards UA runs along these lines:

My first stumbling block is that nobody can show me a piece of the earth that's willing to exhibit it. Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch suits my mood here perfectly: empirically speaking, it's not a cheese shop.

The second is 'celestial gravity', which is a mysterious invisible something that can evidently pull huge, extremely massive things around in all directions...
...and is allegedly responsible for tides and surface variations in measurements of UA...
...so it acts on regular matter too...
...and between regular matter, as experiments with big balls of lead confirm.

It strikes me as inescapable that even if we begin by assuming the existence of UA, we would also need to account for the 'celestial gravity' the earth's disc exerts upon us. Though not as massive as a spherical form, a disc of rock and metal many miles in thickness would exert a distinct pull - an increasingly lateral pull as one moves away from the pole.

No such tug can be detected. But a tug we know there must be, and the only direction in which it can hide is the one we've reserved for UA.

So the earth's 'celestial gravity' is, without exception anywhere on earth, pulling us in the same direction as UA's 'push'.

Huh.

Now, in truth, there are a few different volumetric distributions of matter that yield a gravitational pull at 90 degrees to the surface (ignoring minor local deformations like hills or waves, obviously) at every relevant point - one being a kind of shallow dome - but none of them are flat. That's a huge problem because as we've already established, UA and the earth's celestial gravity are acting in the same direction. And if the earth isn't flat, then the only value for UA that doesn't tear the earth apart in moments is 'zero'.

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #59 on: December 06, 2017, 11:24:28 PM »
My thinking as regards UA runs along these lines:

My first stumbling block is that nobody can show me a piece of the earth that's willing to exhibit it. Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch suits my mood here perfectly: empirically speaking, it's not a cheese shop.

The second is 'celestial gravity', which is a mysterious invisible something that can evidently pull huge, extremely massive things around in all directions...
...and is allegedly responsible for tides and surface variations in measurements of UA...
...so it acts on regular matter too...
...and between regular matter, as experiments with big balls of lead confirm.

It strikes me as inescapable that even if we begin by assuming the existence of UA, we would also need to account for the 'celestial gravity' the earth's disc exerts upon us. Though not as massive as a spherical form, a disc of rock and metal many miles in thickness would exert a distinct pull - an increasingly lateral pull as one moves away from the pole.

No such tug can be detected. But a tug we know there must be, and the only direction in which it can hide is the one we've reserved for UA.

So the earth's 'celestial gravity' is, without exception anywhere on earth, pulling us in the same direction as UA's 'push'.

Huh.

Now, in truth, there are a few different volumetric distributions of matter that yield a gravitational pull at 90 degrees to the surface (ignoring minor local deformations like hills or waves, obviously) at every relevant point - one being a kind of shallow dome - but none of them are flat. That's a huge problem because as we've already established, UA and the earth's celestial gravity are acting in the same direction. And if the earth isn't flat, then the only value for UA that doesn't tear the earth apart in moments is 'zero'.
What should a piece of Earth exhibit? Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me." Not sure what a piece of the Earth should do since it's being pushed normally just like we are.

The Earth itself exerts no pull. Celestial gravitation != gravity. That's the claim. CG is called upon to explain tides and other gravitational anomalies. Cavendish is essentially fake/bad science, because clearly there's no attraction between masses.