# Is it possible that the gravity that keeps our feet planted on the Earth is..

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by jiveabillion, Jul 8, 2013.

1. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
Is it possible that the gravity that keeps our feet planted on the Earth is actually caused by the motion of the Earth as it travels through space and not mass attraction or curvature or space-time?

3. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,450
No. Assuming a contant motion no force would be produced. If it was due to motion of the earth, somehow, then the force direction relative to the surface of the earth would be different depending on which side of the earth you were on.

5. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
I don't think you're right about that. When something on the surface of the Earth passes between the Earth and Sun as the Earth rotates, it is decelerating relative to the center of the Earth on it's path as it revolves around the sun. At the same time it is being pushed closer to the center of revolution, accelerating it further. As it comes around to move towards the outside edge of the earth (with the earth between it and the sun) it is accelerating outward from the apparent centrifugal force of the Earth's revolution around the sun. As it comes around to be in front of the Earth in it's path of revolution around the sun, it is pushed and accelerated past the Earth's center of mass. As it comes back around from the front of the earth to between the sun and earth again, it is decelerated once again. All of these accelerations in different directions are proportioned as the earth rotates.

Since the earth's rotational axis is tilted at a 23.44 degree angle, a body on the surface also has forces pushing it down from "above" and "below". The frequency of the up and down motion increases the closer you get to the poles, which compensates for the decrease in acceleration on the other axes and keeps the forces pointing straight towards the center of the earth no matter where you are standing on it.

7. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,712
No that's not true. If it was true then we would notice the effect-a plane flying through the air for instance would have to adjust course to compensate (for the change in acceleration). Furthermore, clocks would run at different rates on opposite sides of the earth, this is not what we observe so your idea fails to explain our observations.
Centrifugal force doesn't exist, the force is actually centripetal.

Accelerations are explained by applied forces, so you need to explain where these forces come from. Can you explain why, if these forces exist, the earth (and its moon) have been in stable orbits for billions of years? Why haven't these forces perturbed the orbits?

8. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
If the center of the earth is moving in one direction at about 108,000km/hr and something on the surface moves from in front of it to behind it, how is that not deceleration?

9. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
Would someone mind talking me through this on a chat? I've been stuck with this idea in my head for the past 3 weeks and I can't focus on anything else. It has been extremely frustrating trying to find someone to talk to about it. I'll be in this xat chat room for a while, just go there and say "Hi" http://xat.com/xat197135754

10. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Motion of the Earth relative to what? If what you came up with were true (it isn't), the attraction force would depend on the frame of reference the Earth is moving with respect to. It isn't, so your fringe "stuff"y is false.

You can focus on other things now.

11. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,712
This "direction" the center is moving in, you realise it isn't a straight line?
So, how do you define "front" and "behind", given your frame of reference is (some point on) the surface?

Another problem here is, there are several other bodies 'near' the earth, which one does your frame coincide with, or refer to?

12. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
Think about that a little harder for a minute: if something is on the surface of the earth, it is neither moving toward nor away from the center of the earth, so it can't be accelerating/decelerating relative to the center of the earth.

Most of what you have written is obviously just wrong, the rest is basically gibberish.

13. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
You need to think harder about it. When an object is on the Earth, the Earth is moving relative to it in many ways. You need to think about the momentum of that object and what direction it is in at any given moment and then how the Earth moves relative to that. You are wrong and what I've written is not gibberish, you just don't understand it. Think much much harder about the inertia and movement of the Earth relative to the inertia of an object on its surface and maybe you will see it too.

14. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
When on object is on the Earth, it shares all of the Earth's motion. The Earth is not moving relative to the object in any way.

15. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
No, you're very wrong about that. That would only be the case if there really was gravity pulling you towards the Earth, which I am saying does not happen. Also, if that were the case, we would actually feel the Earth moving. The Earth is always moving away from you and towards you in at least 2 directions each way at different proportional speeds.

Edit: If gravity pulls you towards the Earth, then why would we not be able to jump higher when we are behind the Earth on its path around the Sun? Why isn't it harder to jump in front of the Earth?

Last edited: Jul 14, 2013
16. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
Gravity is pulling us towards Earth, and your saying that does not happens only confirms your status as a ignorant crank. Not that it needed confirming.

17. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
You didn't answer my question. If gravity pulls you towards the Earth, then why would we not be able to jump higher when we are behind the Earth on its path around the Sun? Why isn't it harder to jump in front of the Earth?

18. ### RandwolfIgnorance killed the catValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,169
Oh, you can jump higher, didn't you know that? See, Javier Sotomayor from Cuba was in Salamanca on 27 July 1993 when he got that record high jump of 8 ft 0¼ in. Everyone knows that Spain was "behind the Earth" at that time on that day, didn't you? Go ahead, go experiment. Jump up real high when you are "in front of Earth" then go "behind the Earth" and jump again. See the difference? Told ya...

19. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252

Edit: nevermind I just realized it would work about the same in both models

Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
20. ### Fednis48Registered Senior Member

Messages:
725
No, it really wouldn't. Think of it this way. At any given time, the Earth is accelerating in some direction. That means that at any given time, there is a place you can stand such that the Earth is accelerating directly away from you. Without gravity, standing in that location would make you float up into the air, which is nonsense.

21. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
You are wrong about that. Your body would have the momentum from the movement of the Earth. Without proper acceleration, you would stay on it's surface. Have you ever seen someone throw a ball in a moving car while you were standing still? Unless they throw the ball in the opposite direction and at a greater speed than the car is moving, it will continue to move in the same direction as the car. The same thing would happen if you throw something off the "back" of the Earth except the Earth is moving in more than one direction. If you throw the ball straight "up",all you would be doing is accelerating the ball perpendicular to the movement of the surface ( which moves at 1666km/hr or 0.46km/s at the equator), but since the Earth was moving 212km/s in the opposite direction you threw it, you barely put a dent in it's momentum and it catches up with the earth just in time to land in the spot you threw it from.

Here is a video of me throwing a ball backwards while driving

Here is a video of me throwing a ball hard and straight backwards while driving

22. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,625
There is a cosmology that says just that, called Total Field Theory, by K.B. Robertson (Fringe Alert

). I have participated in discussions with the author as well as with at least one of the P&M moderators several years ago. I've seen it on various forums and there is an on-line free book. It hasn't been well received and the forum discussions are predictably disparaging :shrug:. I read it with some interest and amusement; loved the art.*

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/42821561

23. ### jiveabillionRegistered Member

Messages:
252
http://youtu.be/-QCQ0R07SIw

Please watch this video of me trying my best to explain why gravity doesn't really need a fancy explanation and is really just Inertia and momentum. I'm not very good at talking physics, so just try to figure out what I'm trying to say using context clues.