Let's do some science, fellas!

  • 219 Replies
  • 17224 Views
*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:58:56 PM »
The rules of this thread are simple: post a snippet of a FE hypothesis, deduce a consecuence from it (such as "Since the Earth is round , we cant see all the way over to the antipodes."), and design a SIMPLE test procedure to test such prediction from it. REMEMBER: all scientific hypothesis must have power of prediction, and their predictions must must differ from the accepted theories, yet still be consistent with anterior testing.
Be sure to use quotes from the authors, references, and so on. This is your opportunity, FErs, you might get free testing. Hey, you may be even right!
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2015, 12:42:39 AM »
The rules of this thread are simple: post a snippet of a FE hypothesis, deduce a consecuence from it (such as "Since the Earth is round , we cant see all the way over to the antipodes."), and design a SIMPLE test procedure to test such prediction from it. REMEMBER: all scientific hypothesis must have power of prediction, and their predictions must must differ from the accepted theories, yet still be consistent with anterior testing.
Be sure to use quotes from the authors, references, and so on. This is your opportunity, FErs, you might get free testing. Hey, you may be even right!

FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

Simple Test:
1. Pick up pen.
2. Hold pen above the ground.
3. Let go of pen.
4. Observe.

Results:
Trial 1:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 2.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 3.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 4:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 5.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 6.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 7.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 8.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 9:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 10.  Pen fell to the floor.

In 100% of the tests (with a sample size of 10), the pen fell to the floor.

What do I win?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2015, 02:41:31 AM »
Gonna be honest, this seems a stupid idea. What you're looking for isn't a way to prove aspects of the FE hypothesis, it's to find a divergence between the real world and the RE hypothesis: but if you create a model to match observations, that's what you'll get. It's nearly impossible to contradict the RE hypothesis because you've made up such an elaborate lie no one could ever peer through the leagues and leagues of books that describe it, and find an issue that isn't answered with some baseless assumption or other.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2015, 05:15:55 AM »
Gonna be honest, this seems a stupid idea. What you're looking for isn't a way to prove aspects of the FE hypothesis, it's to find a divergence between the real world and the RE hypothesis: but if you create a model to match observations, that's what you'll get. It's nearly impossible to contradict the RE hypothesis because you've made up such an elaborate lie no one could ever peer through the leagues and leagues of books that describe it, and find an issue that isn't answered with some baseless assumption or other.

So the RE model is correct (not necesarilly true, of course, just correct)

Quote
FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.
Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

The rules of this thread are simple: post a snippet of a FE hypothesis, deduce a consecuence from it (such as "Since the Earth is round , we cant see all the way over to the antipodes."), and design a SIMPLE test procedure to test such prediction from it. REMEMBER: all scientific hypothesis must have power of prediction, and their predictions must must differ from the accepted theories, yet still be consistent with anterior testing.
Be sure to use quotes from the authors, references, and so on. This is your opportunity, FErs, you might get free testing. Hey, you may be even right!

FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

[...]

What do I win?

Oh, Im sorry. It seems like you haven't read the rules at all.

REMEMBER: all scientific hypothesis must have power of prediction, and their predictions must must differ from the accepted theories, yet still be consistent with anterior testing.

Your consequence is impossible to distinguish from RET, and therefore does not qualify.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2015, 05:57:28 AM »
So the RE model is correct (not necesarilly true, of course, just correct)

Never say that again. You just sound stupid.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2015, 06:42:41 AM »
So the RE model is correct (not necesarilly true, of course, just correct)

Never say that again. You just sound stupid.
You don't get to tell me what I can or can't say, specially if you don't specify why, or what. You mean that the RE model is not correct? In case you are not familiar with this meaning of correct, it means it works. Several models can be correct at a time, specially if accuracy issues prevent the testing of their different predictions (at an amateur level, for example, Newton's model and General Relativity work out to mostly the same answers, and its impossible to distinguish them apart without the use of special tests. When calculating small scale ballistics, or pendulum motion, classical physics are sufficient, and GR's predictions match them to a degree of accuracy). I DONT claim a model is true because truth is a realm of mathematics, not science.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2015, 06:50:07 AM »
You don't get to tell me what I can or can't say, specially if you don't specify why, or what. You mean that the RE model is not correct? In case you are not familiar with this meaning of correct, it means it works. Several models can be correct at a time, specially if accuracy issues prevent the testing of their different predictions (at an amateur level, for example, Newton's model and General Relativity work out to mostly the same answers, and its impossible to distinguish them apart without the use of special tests. When calculating small scale ballistics, or pendulum motion, classical physics are sufficient, and GR's predictions match them to a degree of accuracy). I DONT claim a model is true because truth is a realm of mathematics, not science.

Down means up. I just say so.
It doesn't work that way, you can't just redefine words to make a shoddy point. If you make enough special exemptions anything could work. I care about truth, not some unworkable definition of correct.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2015, 07:05:54 AM »
You don't get to tell me what I can or can't say, specially if you don't specify why, or what. You mean that the RE model is not correct? In case you are not familiar with this meaning of correct, it means it works. Several models can be correct at a time, specially if accuracy issues prevent the testing of their different predictions (at an amateur level, for example, Newton's model and General Relativity work out to mostly the same answers, and its impossible to distinguish them apart without the use of special tests. When calculating small scale ballistics, or pendulum motion, classical physics are sufficient, and GR's predictions match them to a degree of accuracy). I DONT claim a model is true because truth is a realm of mathematics, not science.

Down means up. I just say so.
It doesn't work that way, you can't just redefine words to make a shoddy point. If you make enough special exemptions anything could work. I care about truth, not some unworkable definition of correct.

It's not my fault you didnt receive a science education, and therefore dont know the difference between model correctness and truth. Truth just means "taken this axyoms, then this is always derivable". Problem is, axyoms in logic are just assumed. For example, I see black. But is what I see true? We simply assume that what we see is, in fact, true. But we have no reason to think that the axiom is true. All logic needs axioms, and therefore, truth isnt universal, or real. The only thing we can know (rely), is that we can test models on a system, and see if they match the evidence, or not. That is model correctness, and that is science. You are free to shun science, claiming that you will only be satisfyied with truth, but dont expect us to follow along. Science is the only model we have to extract knowdlege of the world around us. You are free to come up with another one, and show it's results to us.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2015, 07:18:11 AM »
FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Earth must be traveling at close to light speed if acceleration have been constant for billions of years. c = 3*10^8m/s Light Speed


Test:
1. Get a telescope.
2. Look at universe, different objects in space.
3. Is universe passing by at relative speed close to c?.


Test Step 3 practice:
Observation 1:  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 2.  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 3.  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 4:  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 5.  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 6.  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 7.  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 8.  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 9:  Universe is relatively stationary
Observation 10.  Universe is relatively stationary

during 100% of the tests with a total10 observations, universe was relatively stationary.
Conclusion?
Earth is not accelerating.
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2015, 07:20:59 AM »
Gonna just evade then? You'd sooner debate the nature of truth than accept that your model is a patchwork of guesswork and lies to cover up every hole that's been poked in it over centuries.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13096
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2015, 07:53:27 AM »
I just love the way flat earthers think gravity is magic, but a force constantly accelerating the earth upwards and keeps planets and moons spinning above their fantasy disk earth isn't.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2015, 08:00:07 AM »
I just love the way flat earthers think gravity is magic, but a force constantly accelerating the earth upwards and keeps planets and moons spinning above their fantasy disk earth isn't.

Up there with magical forces like how a car moves? At least acceleration is understood.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13096
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2015, 08:15:42 AM »
I just love the way flat earthers think gravity is magic, but a force constantly accelerating the earth upwards and keeps planets and moons spinning above their fantasy disk earth isn't.

Up there with magical forces like how a car moves? At least acceleration is understood.

You don't understand. In order for something to accelerate, a force is needed. In the case of your magical flat earth, that is what? Santa Claus pushing it?
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2015, 08:23:44 AM »
I just love the way flat earthers think gravity is magic, but a force constantly accelerating the earth upwards and keeps planets and moons spinning above their fantasy disk earth isn't.

Up there with magical forces like how a car moves? At least acceleration is understood.

You don't understand. In order for something to accelerate, a force is needed. In the case of your magical flat earth, that is what? Santa Claus pushing it?

Give me a break, it's accelerating itself. Do you think space is infinite?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2015, 08:31:56 AM »
Just fyi, I backed Conker up into admitting he's not in fact a real scientist & just likes playing at being one a while back...

So enjoy Play-Time with Conker!

LOL!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37801
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2015, 08:50:23 AM »
I am fairly sure that conker claimed to be a student of science, not a scientist.  Not that that makes his misstatements any better. 

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2015, 08:55:56 AM »
Oh, Im sorry. It seems like you haven't read the rules at all.
No, I read your rules.  I simply chose to ignore your rule, which on the very face of it, prevents any argument from being put forth.  Typical RE'er.

Just to remind you what you stated:
...predictions must must differ from the accepted theories...


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2015, 09:03:21 AM »
FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Earth must be traveling at close to light speed if acceleration have been constant for billions of years. c = 3*10^8m/s Light Speed
Hmm, let's work this one out.  Let's say the FE has been accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 for 4.5 billion years.  How long would it take to reach the speed of light?

Some quick math in my head:
...speed of light...4.5 billion years...carry the 1...got it!
We are infinitely far away from the speed of light!  Whew, good thing the math worked out on that one!

Quote
Test:
1. Get a telescope.
2. Look at universe, different objects in space.
3. Is universe passing by at relative speed close to c?.
Uh, but you are in the universe.  I think you don't understand frames of reference.

Quote
during 100% of the tests with a total10 observations, universe was relatively stationary.
Relative to what, you?  Lolz.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2015, 09:46:12 AM »
FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Earth must be traveling at close to light speed if acceleration have been constant for billions of years. c = 3*10^8m/s Light Speed
Hmm, let's work this one out.  Let's say the FE has been accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 for 4.5 billion years.  How long would it take to reach the speed of light?

Some quick math in my head:
...speed of light...4.5 billion years...carry the 1...got it!
We are infinitely far away from the speed of light!  Whew, good thing the math worked out on that one!

Quote
Test:
1. Get a telescope.
2. Look at universe, different objects in space.
3. Is universe passing by at relative speed close to c?.
Uh, but you are in the universe.  I think you don't understand frames of reference.

Quote
during 100% of the tests with a total10 observations, universe was relatively stationary.
Relative to what, you?  Lolz.

1.Relative to us, earth.

2. No you don't understand. Its not the whole universe that's accelerating, but earth.

3. Do you understand physics? I'm sure you do since you are an engineer.
accelerating for 4.5 billion years for about 9.8 m/s^2 will take you to 99.999999999999....% speed of light. this means objects in space must be shortened close to zero in length, since we can see the rest of the universe, we must conclude we are not traveling very close to light speed.

check the math, it works:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/uniform_accel.htm
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2015, 09:54:28 AM »
1.Relative to us, earth.
But the FE is accelerating along with the rest of the stuff inside the universe... ???

Quote
2. No you don't understand. Its not the whole universe that's accelerating, but earth.
No, I don't think you understand.

Quote
3. Do you understand physics?
Yes.  Quite well.

Quote
accelerating for 4.5 billion years for about 9.8 m/s^2 will take you to 99.999999999999....% speed of light.
Like I said, we are infinitely far way from the speed of light.

Quote
this means objects in space must be shortened close to zero in length, since we can see the rest of the universe, we must conclude we are not traveling very close to light speed.
Except they are in the same frame of reference as us, so, no.

Quote
check the math, it works
 
I know the math works.  That's why I just did it for you.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 09:57:59 AM by TheEngineer »


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2015, 10:04:48 AM »
1.Relative to us, earth.
But the FE is accelerating along with the rest of the stuff inside the universe... ???

Quote
2. No you don't understand. Its not the whole universe that's accelerating, but earth.
No, I don't think you understand.

Quote
3. Do you understand physics?
Yes.  Quite well.

Quote
accelerating for 4.5 billion years for about 9.8 m/s^2 will take you to 99.999999999999....% speed of light.
Like I said, we are infinitely far way from the speed of light.

Quote
this means objects in space must be shortened close to zero in length, since we can see the rest of the universe, we must conclude we are not traveling very close to light speed.
Except they are in the same frame of reference as us, so, no.

Quote
check the math, it works
 
I know the math works.  That's why I just did it for you.

So, the only way that can be correct was if the entire universe was accelerating with the earth in the exact same direction.
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2015, 11:05:47 AM »
No, just the stuff in it.  Which is what I said. ???


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2015, 12:08:12 PM »
Oh, Im sorry. It seems like you haven't read the rules at all.
No, I read your rules.  I simply chose to ignore your rule, which on the very face of it, prevents any argument from being put forth.  Typical RE'er.

Just to remind you what you stated:
...predictions must must differ from the accepted theories...

General relativity is consistent with Newton's laws, but it also differs. Tests can be designed to distinguish between them, even though that tests at Newton's time could not find any difference. That's what Im asking everyone on the forum for.

By the way, I don't think this is the right thread to start debating. I would appreciate if you took debate somewhere else. It will keep the thread cleaner


Just fyi, I backed Conker up into admitting he's not in fact a real scientist & just likes playing at being one a while back...

So enjoy Play-Time with Conker!

LOL!!!
I am fairly sure that conker claimed to be a student of science, not a scientist.  Not that that makes his misstatements any better. 
The funny thing is, I said neither. I said I was not a practising scientist. This means Im not working in the realm of scientific investigation. The reason I said that was to clearify that I am not a valid scientific authority, nothing more. Aparently, people take that for "you are not a scientist". I dont care what you guys think I am, but don't go around lying and saying I said that.

Also, please use sources by the creators of the hypothesis to be tested to confirm that the derivations are, indeed, correct. Another thing to remind RE'rs and noobish FE'rs, is that there are many different FE hypothesis. Be sure to specify which one you are refering to (Scepti's atmospheric weight, Universal Acceleration, Aetheric Whirlpool, etc).
Can we go back now to finding some interesting alternative experimentation? We may even discover something along the way!
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2015, 12:32:55 PM »
By the way, I don't think this is the right thread to start debating.

So why did you post it on 'Flat Earth Debate'?

Also; do you speak Catalan?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2015, 01:08:38 PM »
By the way, I don't think this is the right thread to start debating.

So why did you post it on 'Flat Earth Debate'?
Because results will inmediatelly spark debate. However, debating FE itself would fancy its own thread. This is only for experimentation, and proposals for tests, which do involve debating.

Quote
Also; do you speak Catalan?
I dont, I'm from the northwest.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2015, 01:28:19 PM »
General relativity is consistent with Newton's laws, but it also differs.
Uh, no.  General Relativity pretty much destroys Newton's theory of gravitation.

Quote
Tests can be designed to distinguish between them, even though that tests at Newton's time could not find any difference. That's what Im asking everyone on the forum for.
You don't want to accept my experiment.  Got it.



"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2015, 01:34:35 PM »
This is only for experimentation, and proposals for tests, which do involve debating.

Then why did you suggest this?

By the way, I don't think this is the right thread to start debating.

Not very logical...

Hey, Engy (lol!), you're gonna have fun with this one.

Anyway; so you are Spanish, Conker. Do you not know any common Catalan words?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2015, 03:03:14 PM »
General relativity is consistent with Newton's laws, but it also differs.
Uh, no.  General Relativity pretty much destroys Newton's theory of gravitation.
I know the earth is round, but I don't take courvature into account when planning a weekend travel. Newton's laws have been improved by GR, but for most common applications, GR is not needed.

Quote
Quote
Tests can be designed to distinguish between them, even though that tests at Newton's time could not find any difference. That's what Im asking everyone on the forum for.
You don't want to accept my experiment.  Got it.
I accept your experiment, I just told you that it is simply useless for any confirmation or not because RE predicts the same effects.
Find discordance with RE, so we can test it.

This is only for experimentation, and proposals for tests, which do involve debating.

Then why did you suggest this?

By the way, I don't think this is the right thread to start debating.

Not very logical...

Context, Papa. There was an offtopic debate already going on. I was trying to re-rail. Seems like it didnt work.

Quote
Hey, Engy (lol!), you're gonna have fun with this one.

Anyway; so you are Spanish, Conker. Do you not know any common Catalan words?
I know SOME words, but I've never lived in Catalunya, so mostly third hand Catalan.

In any case, lets leave the offtopic debate for other thread. Let's see what we can come up to!
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2015, 04:10:59 PM »
Just for kicks, let's do a prediction for the round earth and see how it turns out!

My hypothesis is that the earth is round. This means, as a necessary consequence, the surface of the earth curves downwards in all directions from any point (excluding local differences in height such as hills, mountains, etc.). From this we can make two predictions. The first is that objects moving away from us will eventually go below the horizon. They will also seem to disappear from the bottom up with a hard line between what is above and below the horizon. This is easy to test. Go out to the ocean on a calm day with low wind and watch a boat go out to sea. You will notice that the boat will eventually go below the horizon, it will disappear from the bottom up, and we can even calculate the exact distance to the horizon if we know our current height. There are countless examples of this happening, and I've yet to see a counter example.

Now, the flat earthers have two options: 1. provide a model that explains how this could happen on a flat earth and adequately accounts for ALL observed phenomena, not just one at a time. 2. accept that the earth is round, or at least that the round earth model has better predictive capabilities than any flat earth model.

Alternatively, you could jam your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA I DON'T HEAR YOU!"

I can think is several other examples of predictions the round earth model can make that the flat earth model can't. These include varying distance to the horizon based on height, sunsets, time zones, and star maps being based off of a round earth model.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2015, 01:42:10 PM »
No, just the stuff in it.  Which is what I said. ???

Alright I think I understand this now, this means we would experience the same accelerational force on every cosmic object, right?
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.