I did that sir, I drew it .AB is a straight line, I'm sure. What your talking about is arc AB...APB could also be a slice of pie, sorry, forgot that term in geometry but I'm sure if you draw a straight line from A to B, APB then become a triangle. Sorry, I know your having hard time and my english is not that straight forward. I do also having hard time composing the right english words for you to understand. Some patience, pls?...I can't draw it using this screen (via computer)...no idea how...

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

You might not be aware of it, but those suggesting membranes normally also suggest space has 10 or 11 dimensions. Or maybe 26, not 5. Although interesting ideas, they have no more evidence for their ideas than you do.

Rob

Oww...I really mean is "may" not could...I'll edit that, thanks.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Yes they do. Your contention is a new ATM theory, perhaps you shoudl open a new thread to discuss and defend it, rather than introducing it in someone else's.

...then you believe too that gravity is "not a force" of attraction as Newton suggested...meaning, it is a product or result of inertial effect... interesting, I"ll take note of that..thanks. To Tusenfem, Undidly, NorthernBoy and all other guys...thank you for giving your time in this thread but I might not reply soon...maybe for a week. I have lot of works to do. But still, I'll check you guys in this forum through the internet shops... Goodnight!

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Yes, yes they do. Sure if they bounce off a mirror and come back up they'll be the same frequency but that doesn't mean their frequency doesn't change with the depth of the gravitational well.

Which is what i've said. Sirjon's idea does not address this shift sufficiently because in his model a laser of a given frequency has no reason to continually produce the same frequency over time.

There is still a shift do to the tidal difference between the release point and the measuring point.

sirjon is trying to replace GR their for he needs to account for what GR accounts for and his model doesn't. That is the point. It does no good to put forth a new model for some aspect of reality if your model explains less the then existing model.

If you want to have a triangle APB and get the length of AB when AP = r, then the (simplified) equation is AB = r sin(phi) where phi is the angle (in radians please!!) and for small angles like your 1/240 deg = 2 pi / (240 * 360) you get that sin(phi) = phi and thus get again AB = r phi. (if you want the non-simplified version, you need to use the cosine rule, F² = G² + H² - 2 GH cos(phi), and in your model G and H are r and phi you know. oops I just see that I misread your equation, sorry sorry sorry!!!!!!!!)

As for drawing, you would either need a drawing programme (adobe illustrator, paint, etc.) or you need a scanner (easier, just draw it on a piece of paper, scan it in, ready).

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I've been thinking more about how to word my argument against sirjon's idea.

Very often we see someone come in with an idea that they think over throws a theory. They've probably genuinely thought about the idea a whole lot and from what they see it explains an aspect of the theory that they are trying to replace. The problem is it most often only explains that 1 aspect of the theory and fails in all other aspects.

It is true in a flat world you could not tell the difference between gravity and acceleration with out some nifty test. The problem is we don't live in a flat world and the nifty test are not only easily done, they have been done.

For example.

Let say you are in a box at T=0 at 10,000m above the surface of the Earth and we are using sirjon's model and the surface is racing upwards towards you instead of you falling deeper into a gravity well.

In sirjon's experiment the using the formula d=1/2at² we would get this
10,000 = 1/2(9.8)t²
20,000 = (9.2)t²
20,000/9.8 = t²
2173.91304347826 = t²
√2173.91304347826= √t²
√2173.91304347826 = t
t = 46.62524s
without terminal velocity coming into play.

The only problem is while sirjon's a = 9.2 on the earth a = g and g is actually dependent on the r which is the distance between the center of the Earth and the body in question.

IE over a long fall in the real world a < 9.2 increasing to ~9.2 when altitude = 0.

His model would only work for small object over a small distance. The larger the distance and/or the longer the time the more his observation would fail. Don't even get me started on how his model fails once you start comparing the gravity on the moon to the gravity on Earth. The ratios would have no reason to stay in sync.

Now there are even more tricks you can do to measure tidal forces within the free falling body that in his model have no reason to be there but in the real world exist. These same artifacts of the gravity well also allow you to do experiments with light to so the actual effect.

This is only one of many problems that his model does not cover but GR does. Therefore GR wins because it better describes a larger number of observation then sirjon's.

Your math gives answers for straight line acceleration.
The acceleration that causes G is not in a straight line.

I have been in a centrifuge (at the fun fair) and accelerated at more than 1 G
for about 300 seconds towards the center of spin.
The center was about 3 meters away but I never got there or reached much
speed in any direction.
In this universe with one time and 4 spacial dimensions (that makes 5) we are aware of only one time and 3 spacial.
The acceleration that causes gravity is at right angles to the 3 dimensions
we know and ,as in the funfair centrifuge, gets you nowhere and does not result in any speed in the direction of the acceleration.

undidly, you misunderstand the human centrifuge at the fun fair.

It is speeding you in the direction of the centre of the centrifuge.

If it wasn't, your body would continue in the straight line it wants to take, and you'd fling off and away.


It's the same reason, for example (though a different way the force is applied) that a satellite orbits a Planet.

Our Moon would want to continue through space in a straight line. But the Gravity of Earth (lets view it as a force for now) keeps pulling it. The path of the Moon is continually "bent" towards Earth, and that keeps it orbiting.

(If something slowed the Moon, then that pull would be "too strong" and the Moon would crash to the earth.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

G is Newton's constant, it is not "created by" an acceleration.

I think that you have misunderstood what this number is. It is no more, and no less, than the number used in the equation;

F = GMmR^-2

Over the last century, we have moved on a long way since Newton.

If you look back at my post, I said that the mass follows a geodesic in spacetime. That bold was very deliberate.

Consider a particle in classical Minkowski spacetime, i.e. one with no gravitational fields or curvature. It's easy to see that the trajectory of a particle, in the absence of any forces acting upon it, is a straight line in spacetime. This is true even if we are using the rest frame of the particle, as even though x, y, and z are constants, the trajectory has extent in the time direction.

So hopefully we are happy with the idea that in SR, a particle experiencing no forces, describes a straight line in spacetime?

O.K. In GR you replace straight lines (the shortest line between two points in a flat geometry) with geodesics (the shortest line between two points in a curved spacetime.) This leads to the initially "static" particle falling down and hitting the ground.

It doesn't hold up even on the surface of the world. The Earth's surface gravity varies slightly depending on location. Some of these variations appear to be due to subsurface density variations, so even a "billiard ball" earth would show some surface gravity variations.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

No that is sirjon's calculation. I'm saying that G causes a curved acceleration that sirjon's model does not address.

The problem with your analogy is that you have to explain why the acceleration that is at a right angle to the other 3 spatial dimensions is also dependant on an object's mass and size.

Yes, I was granting him a little. In my post I did say "IE over a long fall in the real world a < 9.2 increasing to ~9.2 when altitude = 0."

The tell being the ~9.2. I guess I should have showed that fault first. Thanks for drawing attention to that.

"""you misunderstand the human centrifuge at the fun fair."""

We both understand it.You misunderstand what I write.

"""It is speeding you in the direction of the centre of the centrifuge."""

My word was accelerating,same as speeding.

"""If it wasn't, your body would continue in the straight line it wants to take, and you'd fling off and away."""

Yes of course.That is how it works.


""""It's the same reason, for example (though a different way the force is applied) that a satellite orbits a Planet.

Our Moon would want to continue through space in a straight line. But the Gravity of Earth (lets view it as a force for now) keeps pulling it. The path of the Moon is continually "bent" towards Earth, and that keeps it orbiting.

(If something slowed the Moon, then that pull would be "too strong" and the Moon would crash to the earth.)[/QUOTE]"""

I never said this explained orbits.They are more complicated but understandable.
And different gravity on different planets,all understandable.
Simply but in a later post.

I use a capital G to mean GRAVITY.
Quicker than writing it in full each time.

If there is already a symbol that I should have used then
please tell me what it is.

I understand and agree with all that except the last sentence.

"""This leads to the initially "static" particle falling down and hitting the ground."""

So the particle which was only moving in time starts moving in a physical
direction too?.

WHY does it do that.

Actually, it remains at rest in it's local inertial frame. It is just that the local inertial frame does not remain static in our coordinate system.

If you want people to understand your posts, you need to write words out fully, and use them in their accepted sense.

This is not twitter, at least one of us is not fifteen, and I'm not going to help you to develop a new form of text-speak, when we already have standard English at our disposal.

b i i f a g, w h b e m t f y a.

At right angles and size and mass dependent.OK.

The wall of the centrifuge is not absolutely stiff.Imagine it made of rubber.
My mass is pressed into the rubber by the centrifugal (centripetal?) effect.
I am in a dip whose depth and sloping sides depend on my mass and size.
A nearby particle will roll ,away from the center of spin, toward me in my dip.
The particle rolls at RIGHT ANGLES to the direction of the apparent force that is pressing me to the wall,as though rolling down a hill.(It IS rolling down a hill).

My friend has only half my mass and makes a dip less deep and with a smaller gradient around the dip.
Near particles roll towards him with a smaller acceleration.

Smaller masses ,smaller acceleration.

All particles roll towards any dip but the effect fades with distance at the rate of the inverse square of the distance.

This very heavy ball makes a circular dip.

LOOK ,there is a small particle orbiting the heavy ball.
The particle is trying to roll to the heavy ball but it has a speed such that
the centrifugal force of its circular motion stops it from sliding all the way down the slope to the ball.

Another higher speed particle passes by and does not hit the ball but its path is curved towards the ball.

Presumably in your model there are no horizons?

Who's ATM thread is this, undidy's or sirjon's? I'm getting confused trying to follow it.

Very good point. Perhaps undidly should start a new thread to discuss their ATM theory of gravity?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Wish to inform you that I decided to defend my views about the "expanding earth" and the "existence of the fifth dimension" on my own blog. So, I am withdrawing my case in this forum. Thank you very much for all the people who gave their time in this thread. Special thanks to Tusenfem and NorthernBoy for their utmost attention in trying to understand me intelligently. I appreciate them very much. As a last request, pls. read the articles of Robert R. Britt, http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...osmic/-darknrg 020115-1.html .

Tusenfem you are correct. I reviewed my trigonometry...

Equatorial Circumference Growth of the Earth = 2 ∏ ( Re + gt^2/2) where
^2 denotes exponent of 2.

Note : Related msge in another thread: Is BAUT for Experts Only?

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

OK.

Already did one on this subject and got nowhere.

sirjon says the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards and so do I.

Will try again after this one ends.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►