RE: Worst explanations for gravity?
September 10, 2011 at 3:48 am
(This post was last modified: September 10, 2011 at 3:54 am by Anomalocaris.)
(September 8, 2011 at 7:06 pm)Rayaan Wrote:(September 8, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Chuck Wrote: Equivalence principle would call for earth to be accelerating upwards through space, not merely hurtling upwards through space.
The first part is true, but, "hurtling upwards through space" doesn't necessarily negate that the earth is "accelerating upwards through space." The only difference is that "accelerating" is more precise than "hurtling" because it has an added information to it. Therefore, either terms could have been used while (roughly) conveying the same concept.
Since acceleration upward is the only form of "hurtling" that would meet with the superficial approval of the equivalence principle, specifying hurtling without specifying acceleration is somewhat like calling yourself "organism" when asked what species you belong to. :p
(September 9, 2011 at 8:53 pm)8BitAtheist Wrote: When I was a child my grandmother explained to me
1. That Hell was the center of the earth.
2. Hell was a vacuum for our sins.
3. There was a lot of sin on earth
4. and thus Hell's vacuum held us down.
Since the pull of vacuum would be at it's strongest when there is absolutely nothing to fill it, that would suggest if there is no sin on earth to fill the vacuum, we would get sucked into hell all the faster.
Conversely, If we sin truly tirelessly, the vacuum of hell would be filled sooner and the gravity would stop.
