Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
welcome to the internets, full of bad grammar and people who dont give a shit ;O
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
Where does the UA originate from?
Where does the expansion of the universe in RE 'originate' from?
Can I assume you're happy to discuss how great it'd be to walk in on your mum sat on my face?
Where did I claim you were wrong?
When we are not looking, do things happen like they would if we were looking at them? The answer is not at all obvious. Even in modern science, the answer is not very certain.
I am very well acquainted with the Equivalence Principle, thank you very much. Why do you ask?
Protip: Air is a fluid.
I lol at the general incompetence in error analysis showed by both sides and the author of this paper. Tom's arguments are quite epic.
And it is your duty to back up your claim.
Do you understand that a ten percent error, multiplied by a 3 percent error does not equal a thirty percent error?
That ten percent error is happening over and over again. Ergo, recurring. The 3 percent variable is a multiplier variable since the three percent is the rate at which the ten percent error recurs.
I beg to differ. Your ignorant posting style and aversion to research are supremely uninteresting.
The equivalence principle is mentioned, but not Robosteve's theory.
11777 to 56...who is punishing who?
Nobody is punishing anybody, you just happen to be a Punisher alt.
Hi, I am new to the flat earth society.
This post was unnecessary, your others make it clear enough.
Before you comment on it, perhaps you should read it yourself. That isn't mentioned.
Also, while your at it, explain how Newton's law of cooling describes the Earth as being spherical.
Incorrect. The author describes the total multi-variable margin of error over multiple trial runs just fine. In the experiment the ten percent margin of error recurs with discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes. That means the total margin of error is recurring. Over extended trial runs the margin of error accumulates and therefore the variables can be multiplied.
Please educate yourself.
Do you know the equivalence principle onle applies over small volumes and times?
Without wanting to make massive, unfounded assumptions, have you even seen that there is an ENORMOUS thread on gravity stickied on the forums? I believe you will find the equivalence principle is well understood round these parts.
The point of this mental exercise is to determine whether anything can actually occur without being observed.
Wrong. Read more. Post less.
QuoteI'd say that article does nothing to refute the Cavendish experiment or other experiments that have measured G with different methods.
Actually the paper I linked demolishes the validity of the Cavendish Experiment pretty badly. It demonstrates that the experiment is entirely invalid.
An apple weighs, what, 2 or 3 ounces?
Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That?s a thirty percent error.
Here's a similar one from my professor:
A distant star turns into a supernova and no one or any devices was there to record it. We cannot observe it on Earth. Did the supernova occur?
No, I've never learned that the Earth is actually pushing the air.
Combine your knowledge of fluid dynamics with the equivalence principle, the rest follows. Don't ask me to explain, I'm drunk.
All physics says the earth is spherical. Does this mean we close the site?
Please explain how Newton's first law of motion describes the Earth as being spherical.
erm. I doubt it. There's no fluid in motion in this situation.
I said "fluid mechanics", not "fluid dynamics". There's a big difference.
Physics is physics.
Atmosphere is a gradient.
im gonna ask for the science behind that idea.. but im not gettin my hopes up..
Fluid mechanics.