90% of RE beliefs

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:18:13 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

Right, because there's this magic force holding them up ...   

So why do they move, why do planets orbit stars, why do objects exert their influence on nearby objects, all of which can be observed and have been observed for centuries?  Gravity explains all that.  UA doesn't.  It fails in all aspects.

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:18:13 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

What's so hard to understand that acceleration without a frame of reference is senseless, it's null, it's non existent.

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:29:12 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:18:13 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

Right, because there's this magic force holding them up ...   

So why do they move, why do planets orbit stars, why do objects exert their influence on nearby objects, all of which can be observed and have been observed for centuries?  Gravity explains all that.  UA doesn't.  It fails in all aspects.

There's no magic force holding them up. The entire universe is accelerating uniformly. How would they "fall"?

I am trying to understand how, if the entire universe is accelerating uniformly, why does the earth catch up to us?
When we jump, we have an additional force from our legs.  We momentarily accelerate faster than the earth, however, when the force is no longer applied, we still have this universal accelerator acting on us.  We should should be hovering over the earth.  Unless this universal accelerator doesn't act on the entire universe equally.

When you jump, you have a greater acceleration for a small amount of time while you are applying the force to cause the jump.  As soon as you leave the ground, you are traveling at a constant speed. For example, let's assume a 20m/s^2 jump acceleration which is applied over .5 seconds, and round the UA to 10 for simplicity.  You will be traveling 10 m/s faster than the earth as soon as you leave the ground and will continue to travel at this speed
 The earth will continue to accelerate at 10m/s^2 though and well catch your speed at 1 second after you jumped and catch up to you between the 1 and 2 second mark.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 25, 2014, 10:37:20 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:18:13 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

What's so hard to understand that acceleration without a frame of reference is senseless, it's null, it's non existent.

Why should I take physics lessons from someone who can't do basic math?
Besides that, refer to my diagram for the most contemporary model of my attempted conveyance of my hypothesis.
I suppose a point in the ether-less "universe container" could be used as a hypothetical FoR, if that helps you sleep at night.

When you jump, you have a greater acceleration for a small amount of time while you are applying the force to cause the jump.  As soon as you leave the ground, you are traveling at a constant speed. For example, let's assume a 20m/s^2 jump acceleration which is applied over .5 seconds, and round the UA to 10 for simplicity. You will be traveling 10 m/s faster than the earth as soon as you leave the ground and will continue to travel at this speed
 The earth will continue to accelerate at 10m/s^2 though and well catch your speed at 1 second after you jumped and catch up to you between the 1 and 2 second mark.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:42:14 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 25, 2014, 10:37:20 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:18:13 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

What's so hard to understand that acceleration without a frame of reference is senseless, it's null, it's non existent.

Why should I take physics lessons from someone who can't do basic math?
Besides that, refer to my diagram for the most contemporary model of my attempted conveyance of my hypothesis.
I suppose a point in the ether-less "universe container" could be used as a hypothetical FoR, if that helps you sleep at night.

Where did I fail "basic math"? In the example where I specified that I was very generous with the earth's life?
*FACEPALM*

Also your diagram assumes that you somehow know what's outside the universe, if there even is such a thing as "outside" the universe. If I say that there are 2 huge hands holding the universe in place while it expands, it's just as valid an assumption as yours. This is a baseless assumption to support your baseless claim.
By the way, there's no "space" outside the universe to have a frame of reference for the universe.
*FACEPALM*

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 24, 2014, 10:59:56 AM

When you jump, you have a greater acceleration for a small amount of time while you are applying the force to cause the jump.  As soon as you leave the ground, you are traveling at a constant speed. For example, let's assume a 20m/s^2 jump acceleration which is applied over .5 seconds, and round the UA to 10 for simplicity. You will be traveling 10 m/s faster than the earth as soon as you leave the ground and will continue to travel at this speed
 The earth will continue to accelerate at 10m/s^2 though and well catch your speed at 1 second after you jumped and catch up to you between the 1 and 2 second mark.

The bolded part makes no sense if every point in space within the universe is accelerated at the same time. Sorry but you'll have to make up some more bullshit to fit this question xD
Also, Jupiter's moons, as pointed out by Galileo Galilei, sure seem to disobey this "universal acceleration" thing, and they sure seem to obey gravity... 
Ever heard of it? It's gravity!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 25, 2014, 11:06:19 AM

I am trying to understand how, if the entire universe is accelerating uniformly, why does the earth catch up to us?
When we jump, we have an additional force from our legs.  We momentarily accelerate faster than the earth, however, when the force is no longer applied, we still have this universal accelerator acting on us.  We should should be hovering over the earth.  Unless this universal accelerator doesn't act on the entire universe equally.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 24, 2014, 10:59:56 AM

When you jump, you have a greater acceleration for a small amount of time while you are applying the force to cause the jump.  As soon as you leave the ground, you are traveling at a constant speed. For example, let's assume a 20m/s^2 jump acceleration which is applied over .5 seconds, and round the UA to 10 for simplicity.  You will be traveling 10 m/s faster than the earth as soon as you leave the ground and will continue to travel at this speed
 The earth will continue to accelerate at 10m/s^2 though and well catch your speed at 1 second after you jumped and catch up to you between the 1 and 2 second mark.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:42:14 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 25, 2014, 10:37:20 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 10:18:13 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:41:05 AM

Quote from: HeeHaw on April 25, 2014, 09:35:33 AM

Both Einstein's aether and the classical luminiferous aether were stationary.  They were simply a medium through which light (or mass-less energy) propagated.  In neither case was aether hypothesized to cause objects to move at constant acceleration.

FE'ers are just saying "it's the aether" and then finding scientific writings that mention ether and say "hey look Einstein talked about aether!" without realizing that his version of aether lacks any of the physical properties that they claim their version of aether has.     

Did I ever say the Ether caused the universe to accelerate constantly and uniformly?
I'll give you a hint: no.
I said it could be why the universe is allowed to indefinitely accelerate, without abiding to the laws and rules set forth by Special Relativity.
No Ether, no constant speed of light.

I didn't say you did.  I said FE'ers.  From this site's own FAQ:

Quote

It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

And as I said, Einstein's "new aether" was his term for what we now call "the fabric of space-time".  It has no connection to the luminiferous aether or the magical "aetheric wind". 

Still, your hypothesis does nothing to explain the mechanics of the rest of the universe, only the sensation of gravity on a flat earth.  Everything else in the universe seems to be exempt from this phenomenon, since the stars and planets and everything else in the universe doesn't fall from the sky.

Why would they fall from the sky?
What's so hard to grasp about a uniform universal acceleration?
I don't think I've ever used that combination of words, "aetheric wind".
I'm sorry I didn't just put forth a theory of everything - I am but one man.
Still, they wouldn't fall from the sky.

What's so hard to understand that acceleration without a frame of reference is senseless, it's null, it's non existent.

Why should I take physics lessons from someone who can't do basic math?
Besides that, refer to my diagram for the most contemporary model of my attempted conveyance of my hypothesis.
I suppose a point in the ether-less "universe container" could be used as a hypothetical FoR, if that helps you sleep at night.

Where did I fail "basic math"? In the example where I specified that I was very generous with the earth's life?
*FACEPALM*

Also your diagram assumes that you somehow know what's outside the universe, if there even is such a thing as "outside" the universe. If I say that there are 2 huge hands holding the universe in place while it expands, it's just as valid an assumption as yours. This is a baseless assumption to support your baseless claim.
By the way, there's no "space" outside the universe to have a frame of reference for the universe.
*FACEPALM*

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 24, 2014, 10:59:56 AM

When you jump, you have a greater acceleration for a small amount of time while you are applying the force to cause the jump.  As soon as you leave the ground, you are traveling at a constant speed. For example, let's assume a 20m/s^2 jump acceleration which is applied over .5 seconds, and round the UA to 10 for simplicity. You will be traveling 10 m/s faster than the earth as soon as you leave the ground and will continue to travel at this speed
 The earth will continue to accelerate at 10m/s^2 though and well catch your speed at 1 second after you jumped and catch up to you between the 1 and 2 second mark.

The bolded part makes no sense if every point in space within the universe is accelerated at the same time. Sorry but you'll have to make up some more bullshit to fit this question xD
Also, Jupiter's moons, as pointed out by Galileo Galilei, sure seem to disobey this "universal acceleration" thing, and they sure seem to obey gravity... 
Ever heard of it? It's gravity!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

*FACEPALM*

Refer to the post where you used the age of Earth in years while multiplying by the unit meters per second, to come up with an extremely incorrect answer.
It is a hypothesis. If there is no "space" outside the universe, how is it expanding? One could speculate that there is no ether out there, because there is no light.
Think about the entire universe as a rock, being accelerated upwards at 9.81 m/s^2.
You are an ant on the top of the rock.
You jump, the rock catches up to you.
Assuming there IS space outside the universe, and I can not imagine the absence of "space" outside the universe, the universe is accelerating relative to a theoretical point in that space.

The part you bolded from my explanation makes perfect sense if you actually take the time to think it over instead of assuming it's wrong.  Nothing on the surface of the earth is directly acted upon by the UA, only indirectly through the acceleration of the earth.  Therefore once you break contact with the earth surface, you are no longer being influenced by the UA at all.

On the macro scale it does.  On the micro scale the UA is blocked by physical bodies, such as the earth.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 25, 2014, 12:17:35 PM

*FACEPALM*

Seriously, enough with the facepalms already.  As you can probably guess by now, they aren't helping your case.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 25, 2014, 01:07:07 PM

The part you bolded from my explanation makes perfect sense if you actually take the time to think it over instead of assuming it's wrong.  Nothing on the surface of the earth is directly acted upon by the UA, only indirectly through the acceleration of the earth.  Therefore once you break contact with the earth surface, you are no longer being influenced by the UA at all.

So then you should rename it from "universal acceleration" to "convenient acceleration", because it obviously is only accelerating the points in space that are convenient for this fantasy to seem real...

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 25, 2014, 01:14:59 PM

On the macro scale it does.  On the micro scale the UA is blocked by physical bodies, such as the earth.

Ergo it's no universal... Ergo it doesn't act in all points of space...

What could possibly be OUTSIDE the universe? 'UNIVERSE: noun. 1. The whole body of things & phenomena observed or postulated: COSMOS: as... c (1): the entire celestial cosmos... [origin: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole,...]' Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. If the universe is EVERYTHING, then nothing is outside it. There is no outside.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 01:00:39 PM

Refer to the post where you used the age of Earth in years while multiplying by the unit meters per second, to come up with an extremely incorrect answer.
It is a hypothesis. If there is no "space" outside the universe, how is it expanding? One could speculate that there is no ether out there, because there is no light.
Think about the entire universe as a rock, being accelerated upwards at 9.81 m/s^2.
You are an ant on the top of the rock.
You jump, the rock catches up to you.
Assuming there IS space outside the universe, and I can not imagine the absence of "space" outside the universe, the universe is accelerating relative to a theoretical point in that space.

About my earth calculation, what part of the word "generous", in that context, do you not understand? The one who should be ashamed of themselves is you, for getting to the same result (~130 times c) while using realistic values... (hint, the real value is in the millions)

The universe doesn't expand "into" space, spacetime itself expands. Here's a comprehensive explanation:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

"Think about the entire universe as a rock, being accelerated upwards at 9.81 m/s^2.
You are an ant on the top of the rock.
You jump, the rock catches up to you." - In that case the whole concept of "universal acceleration" falls apart because it's not universal anymore, ergo it's not in every point in space.

"Assuming there IS space outside the universe, and I can not imagine the absence of "space" outside the universe, the universe is accelerating relative to a theoretical point in that space." - There isn't. The universe itself is defined as "everything that exists", containing "spacetime, energy and physical laws". In the universe, having something "outside" of it as a frame of reference doesn't make sense.
Unless you're going into the whole multiverse business, which I'm pretty sure is way above your paygrade xD

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 25, 2014, 01:07:07 PM

The part you bolded from my explanation makes perfect sense if you actually take the time to think it over instead of assuming it's wrong.  Nothing on the surface of the earth is directly acted upon by the UA, only indirectly through the acceleration of the earth.  Therefore once you break contact with the earth surface, you are no longer being influenced by the UA at all.

So then you should rename it from "universal acceleration" to "convenient acceleration", because it obviously is only accelerating the points in space that are convenient for this fantasy to seem real...

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 25, 2014, 01:14:59 PM

On the macro scale it does.  On the micro scale the UA is blocked by physical bodies, such as the earth.

Ergo it's no universal... Ergo it doesn't act in all points of space...

There is no container. There is nothing 'holding the universe in'. It's not like a glass of milk. That is why the universe continues to expand. Since the Big Bang, the universe has been 'flying apart' from itself, if you will, but not into anything. The universe is all there is. So UA can't be accelerating the entire universe. In relation to what? Anything that exists is by definition a part of the universe.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 25, 2014, 02:43:56 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 25, 2014, 01:07:07 PM

The part you bolded from my explanation makes perfect sense if you actually take the time to think it over instead of assuming it's wrong.  Nothing on the surface of the earth is directly acted upon by the UA, only indirectly through the acceleration of the earth.  Therefore once you break contact with the earth surface, you are no longer being influenced by the UA at all.

So then you should rename it from "universal acceleration" to "convenient acceleration", because it obviously is only accelerating the points in space that are convenient for this fantasy to seem real...

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 25, 2014, 01:14:59 PM

On the macro scale it does.  On the micro scale the UA is blocked by physical bodies, such as the earth.

Ergo it's no universal... Ergo it doesn't act in all points of space...

Are you just intentionally misunderstanding or is this for real?  The UA pushes the Earth, the earth translates this force to you.  It's like when a car accelerates, you are accelerated by the car but if you were no longer in contact with the car, you would fall toward the back of the car if it kept accelerating after you left contact.

The UA accelerates everything it is in direct contact with, but it is not in direct contact with everything due to shielding.  I should give you a taste of your own medicine with the facepalms, but that'd be childish.

Do you know what generous means? PLEASE tell me where I "got similar values" while using the correct numbers?
I haven't even carried this calculation out in this thread. By the way - I used the word "correct" because you used incorrect numbers to get your incorrect answer. You can justify it any way you'd like.

As for the universe, expansion implies that there is room to expand (Volume, Length, Depth, Width).
Refer to my diagram once again for the content of the "container".

As for the rest of your post, DuckDodgers has provided an adequate response, and so I shall not waste my time.
As for the facepalms, you've already been politely asked by a mod to stop.
It really isn't helping you.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 25, 2014, 09:27:45 PM

Do you know what generous means? PLEASE tell me where I "got similar values" while using the correct numbers?
I haven't even carried this calculation out in this thread. By the way - I used the word "correct" because you used incorrect numbers to get your incorrect answer. You can justify it any way you'd like.

As for the universe, expansion implies that there is room to expand (Volume, Length, Depth, Width).
Refer to my diagram once again for the content of the "container".

As for the rest of your post, DuckDodgers has provided an adequate response, and so I shall not waste my time.
As for the facepalms, you've already been politely asked by a mod to stop.
It really isn't helping you.

"((4.54 billion * 365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60) * (9.81)) / 299,792,458 = >130"
*FACEPALM*

"I used the word "correct" because you used incorrect numbers to get your incorrect answer." - I used rough approximations because it gets the point across without huge numbers, mainly the fact that we would have exceeded the speed of light already.

"As for the universe, expansion implies that there is room to expand (Volume, Length, Depth, Width)." - No it doesn't, since it's not expanding into anything, rather the SPACE itself is expanding. Watch the video, it explains it better than me:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

"Refer to my diagram once again for the content of the "container"." - Your diagram fails badly because it implies space outside the universe, when the universe is, by definition, everything, made up with 3 main things: spacetime, energy and physical laws.
As I said earlier, unless you go into the multiverse, which is way above your paygrade xD
Basically there's no space outside the universe to have a point of reference, therefore this acceleration would be null. But wait, the other guy now said that it's not universal, that it doesn't act in all points in space at once. Wow you people can't even agree anymore xD

It is impossible for space to be OUTSIDE the universe. As per the dictionary def. cited above, EVERYTHING, including space, exists in the universe. The only thing that MIGHT qualify for being OUTSIDE time & space, both of which are in this universe, is God. & I don't think ANYONE wants to make this conversation theological @ present. But as for space (volume, length, width, depth), it has to exist in this universe.

Again, you've just demonstrated that you don't understand basic math. Do you know what a "greater than" symbol is? 

Your "rough approximations" are just not. An "approximation" is supposed to mean getting as close to the answer as you possibly can (if you're unable to get the correct answer for whatever reason). You can justify yourself being wrong any way you'd like, it doesn't change the fact that you were. The correct value for "age of the Earth in seconds" would be 1.43271504E+17. You've hardly approximated that. Again, jroa has asked you to stop with the facepalms, and you're just making yourself look stupid.

Space is expanding - which means that there is room for it to expand. As per the multiverse theory, the universe is moving. I've heard variations of the theory that say that the "layers" of "universes" are all moving about, and actually bump into each other every once in a while. This is one theory of how the big bang happened. Don't assume my lack of intelligence, when all throughout this thread you've demonstrated your incompetence.

The universe moving implies that there is space for it to move about, and there could exist a theoretical FoR in this space. Then again, I'm sure you're a few multitudes more adept than the theoretical physicists who come up with this stuff.