A mass experiencing constant acceleration not having some force applied, would break the fundamental laws of physics.

You're making the mistake of assuming that a body in free-fall has proper acceleration. Proper (frame-invariant) acceleration is zero for an object in free-fall. Hence, net force = zero in free-fall.

 

Is this spam? Because of the ad at the end

I like the moving charge experiment that's very interesting.

A thought experiment i posed back in the 1980's was that the earth was expanding and everything else was too. So here is an example.

Take two balloons in deep space and have a way to blow them up that does not require any extra mass or any extra forces. As their surfaces move closer to each other the surfaces only accelerate at 1/2 the 9.8 m/s/s of what we call gravity. Once they touch, the touching parts of the surfaces no longer move relative to each other but seem as if to 'stick' to each other. That sort of mimics gravity.
If they were different sizes to begin with we might have to divide the acceleration up between them in a different ratio.

But really we are back to square one where gravity seems to be hard to figure out. If spacetime is responsible, then what is responsible for spacetime.

One thing everyone agrees with. Anything that rests on the surface of the earth experiences a force and the earth experiences a force from that object too. The forces are balanced so the two do not cause any movement.

So maybe we can say that inertia is the act of "falling" through spacetime and we can change or speed up the rate at which it falls as well as the direction.

 

Standing in a gravitational field, like on the surface of earth, you are holding an apple. The you drop it and the apple accelerates toward the earth, so the earth must be exerting on force on the apple, right?

No, that is backwards. YOU are exerting a force on the apple before dropping it that prevents it from following it space-time geodesic.

Bob

 

...it is not the spoon that bends...

 

Yes this is all very interesting and a little far from what our experience tells us. But then out experience is so limited when it comes to nature. We tend to make up rules and then when we find out they dont work we seem surprised.
What i always hear is, "That's something we never expected".
How many times have i heard that in many many many fields of study. Makes you think that nothing we think we know is right.

 

What is 'right' in our experience depends on the scale. Most of the things in flux now are at the extremes of experience. Flat Earth is right in the scale of local maps.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

 

It may be the scale sometimes but not all the time.
Someone said, "It may not be a force but it acts like one".
Our basic working set is completely different than reality. We tend to try to extend what we already know along the same lines of thought and that's why we dont always get it right. It kind of remines me of when you are tired and try to figure something out and cant no matter how long you kee at it, but then after a short rest it pops right into your mind, and that is because we were thinking of it wrong and couldnt quite see it right away.

 

It may be the scale sometimes but not all the time.
Someone said, "It may not be a force but it acts like one".
Our basic working set is completely different than reality. We tend to try to extend what we already know along the same lines of thought and that's why we dont always get it right. It kind of remines me of when you are tired and try to figure something out and cant no matter how long you kee at it, but then after a short rest it pops right into your mind, and that is because we were thinking of it wrong and couldnt quite see it right away.

While it's true we extend our knowledge on existing knowledge that's because, in general, building is incremental. The most devious problems I've solved were not black and white, right or wrong. They were corner-cases of probabilities (several causes for effects) that only showed their faces on a blue moon under submicroscopic examination.

 

Sorry, I just picked up this 'planet's appearance' thing from the video, just to emphasize the two situations - one being at rest w.r.t to a distant observer and other changing the state from rest to motion, in a 'gravitating' environment... I am eager to know what effect caused the apple to start moving relative to the stationery distant observer...!! Newton's case is clear - He wud say, the Planet 'pulled' it...

Surely, I am not sure if it was right or sensible to use (or extend) that analogy to the apple's case...!! ...!!!

Regards,
Rahul

A what-if thought-experiment. What sucks more than 2020?

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...neously-turned-into-a-black-hole-c86d2a6b7ae1

What Would We Experience If Earth Spontaneously Turned Into A Black Hole?
Yes, we’d all die. But for 21 minutes, we’d have the ride of a lifetime.

If, somehow, the electromagnetic and quantum forces holding the Earth up against gravitational collapse were turned off, Earth would quickly become a black hole. Here’s what we would experience if that were to happen.

As you can see from the illustration above, the size of the arrows — as well as the speed that they move at — increases as we get closer to the central singularity of a black hole. In Newtonian gravity, which is a good approximation as long as you’re very far away from the event horizon (or the equivalent size of the event horizon), the gravitational acceleration you experience will quadruple every time your distance to a point halves. In Einsteinian gravity, which matters as you get close to the event horizon, your acceleration will increase even more significantly than that.

 

Gravity is not a force between masses in general relativity. Gravity, instead, is the result of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass.
Without a force acting on it, the object can travel in a straight line.

 

Finding Gravitational measure although still theoretical, even though unproved doesn’t explain why my feet are in contact with the planet at 168 lbs while my cat is only 16lbs in a vacuum we would still be the same weights. While on the moon we would weigh less in comparison of the measurement on earth.

If Gravity existed in a Newtonian model I would think it would allow for measurements in the standard model. I stick to the Standard Model.



kv

 

Can I get some of that wine you're drinking?

 

Can I get some of that wine you're drinking?

Sure, inhale and fall into the rabbit hole!

 

Sure, inhale and fall into the rabbit hole!

How does in a vacuum figure into the gravity equation? Vacuum (void of matter) or the lack of is surely not a blocker or transport media for gravity.

 

How does in a vacuum figure into the gravity equation? Vacuum (void of matter) or the lack of is surely not a blocker or transport media for gravity.

I don’t, if someone thinks Vacuum might affect weight and doesn’t, I use to think it did, I’ve since learned the size of the object I’m standing on is lighter or heaver than the earth would effect my weight measurment.