-
My questions from different topic are ignored, so let me start a new thread from stratch that is dedicated purely to UA.
The concept of UA is the following:
Everything within the visible universe is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 along with the FE. Within our frame of reference, we will experience acceleration to be a constant 9.8m/s^2. To someone outside the accelerating frame of reference, they would see the acceleration decrease as the accelerating FOR approached the speed of light. The accelerating FE/universe would require an infinite amount of time to reach the speed of light.
Well, that obviously creates few problems.
1. Acceleration rate is not constant.
2. There is no "outside", so how can we talk about any FOR not being accelerated?
3. What does UA accelerate?
What is the reason that when I jump, I land back on the floor?
Suggested answer:
When you are no longer in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise), you are no longer accelerating and have become inertial. The FE is still accelerating, and will catch up to your body. When you recontact the FE (again, directly or otherwise) you are again being accelerated.
created even more questions, all are mine:
But... why? Isn't UA supposed to accelerate EVERYTHING?
Or UA chooses what it wants to accelerate? So only the Earth, Moon, starts etc, but not objets on them. It does not make any sense.
Does the UA accelerate me sitting on my chair or it does not?
If yes, then why do I stop being accelerated by the UA when I jump?
If no, then why does it accelerate the Earth but not me?
Any clear and explicit explaination?
Question 1. was given a hand-waved answer, so I do not bother quoting.
Question 2. remains unanswered.
Question 3. - provided answers are unclear and produced even more questions.
This is in debate, because I want to discuss this, not to just receive an answer that may (not) make sense.
-
I get your point about everything being accelerated now, I thought you meant acceleration is relative so if there is nothing to measure it against its not accelerating, that would be wrong.
But what you actually meant is why doesn't the UA accelerate us as well as the planet. That is a good point, they would say some force is pushing the disk up, but that doesn't explain why the moon and sun go up at the same speed. Sorry about the confusion.
-
Few more questions to your "theory":
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects).
When the object is sufficiently massive?
Why only sufficiently massive objects are accelerated?
Why the effect on smaller bodies is negligible? It should be measurable after all.
If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...
Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?
-
The wind can blow on a sail without blowing on things that are on the other side of the sail.
-
How does the UA know the mass of objects? How does it control it's force so objects of different mass accelerate at the same rate?
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
-
My question would be about energy. To accelerate something (as opposed to constant velocity - assuming no friction), don't you need energy somewhere?
-
If think the problem is how is it pushing the sun and moon if the earth blocks it.
-
My question would be about energy. To accelerate something (as opposed to constant velocity - assuming no friction), don't you need energy somewhere?
What is causing the RET universe to constantly expand when gravity should have caused it to begin collapsing long ago? Your scientists don't have all their answers, but you expect us to know everything. Have you ever heard of double standards?
-
My question would be about energy. To accelerate something (as opposed to constant velocity - assuming no friction), don't you need energy somewhere?
What is causing the RET universe to constantly expand when gravity should have caused it to begin collapsing long ago? Your scientists don't have all their answers, but you expect us to know everything. Have you ever heard of double standards?
Have you ever heard of escape velocity? I believe gravity goes down by the distance SQUARED. So at very large distances, gravity is very small indeed. If the objects are moving away from each other faster than the escape velocity between them, they will never stop - they will keep expanding. This is gravity 101. Before you discuss RET/heliocentric concepts and what they should do, you should learn them first.
As I have said before, when there is no answer to FE questions, a derailment debate tactic is to bring in RET and argue proving/disproving RET instead. Your comment is therefore expected with nothing about FE.
Being THE expert on UA, what is the UA explanation for the observed expansion on/in the "dome" since YOU brought it up and this is a discussion about UA not RET? If you are going to push UA, you should know something about it, yes?
Where is the energy for UA coming from?
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
-
Why on top of the mountains there's less gravity? If the UA exists then it shouldn't matter where you are you'll wiegh the same.
-
Magic upwards force from the stars
-
Have you ever heard of escape velocity? I believe gravity goes down by the distance SQUARED. So at very large distances, gravity is very small indeed. If the objects are moving away from each other faster than the escape velocity between them, they will never stop - they will keep expanding. This is gravity 101. Before you discuss RET/heliocentric concepts and what they should do, you should learn them first.
Have you ever heard of Dark Energy? Your scientists are the ones who made this up in an attempt to explain why, when they crunch the numbers, the universe should be collapsing, not expanding. Look it up.
As I have said before, when there is no answer to FE questions, a derailment debate tactic is to bring in RET and argue proving/disproving RET instead. Your comment is therefore expected with nothing about FE.
You demand this and that from us, yet your own scientists can not provide the same thing for RET. That is not a derailment; it is pointing out that you people are hypocrites.
Being THE expert on UA, what is the UA explanation for the observed expansion on/in the "dome" since YOU brought it up and this is a discussion about UA not RET? If you are going to push UA, you should know something about it, yes?
I have never claimed that I follow the domed Earth model. Please, provide a quote that says I do.
Where is the energy for UA coming from?
Where is the energy for the continued expansion of your RET universe coming from? Your scientists will admit that they do not know. We do the same.
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
-
Why on top of the mountains there's less gravity? If the UA exists then it shouldn't matter where you are you'll wiegh the same.
On a round Earth, why is gravity not greater on a mountain where there is more mass under your feet?
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
Hey, you guys made it up, so you should be able to make up how it works.
-
Why on top of the mountains there's less gravity? If the UA exists then it shouldn't matter where you are you'll wiegh the same.
On a round Earth, why is gravity not greater on a mountain where there is more mass under your feet?
I must say, that is a very good point. could gravity simply be because of denpressure?
-
Why on top of the mountains there's less gravity? If the UA exists then it shouldn't matter where you are you'll wiegh the same.
On a round Earth, why is gravity not greater on a mountain where there is more mass under your feet?
Gravity is all to do with the center of mass total. ie whole earth.
T
he force of gravity is greatest on its surface and gradually decreases as you move away from its center (as a square of the distance between the object and the center of the Earth). Of course, the earth is not a uniform sphere so the gravitational field around it is not uniform.
-
Why on top of the mountains there's less gravity? If the UA exists then it shouldn't matter where you are you'll wiegh the same.
On a round Earth, why is gravity not greater on a mountain where there is more mass under your feet?
So you admit it's different? Well, that's UA debunked then.
-
Why on top of the mountains there's less gravity? If the UA exists then it shouldn't matter where you are you'll wiegh the same.
On a round Earth, why is gravity not greater on a mountain where there is more mass under your feet?
That has been answered lots of time, being more distant from the center of the planet reduces gravity more than the mass of the mountain increases it, someone even calculated it somewhere.
Learn the model.
-
Have you ever heard of escape velocity? I believe gravity goes down by the distance SQUARED. So at very large distances, gravity is very small indeed. If the objects are moving away from each other faster than the escape velocity between them, they will never stop - they will keep expanding. This is gravity 101. Before you discuss RET/heliocentric concepts and what they should do, you should learn them first.
Have you ever heard of Dark Energy? Your scientists are the ones who made this up in an attempt to explain why, when they crunch the numbers, the universe should be collapsing, not expanding. Look it up.
As I have said before, when there is no answer to FE questions, a derailment debate tactic is to bring in RET and argue proving/disproving RET instead. Your comment is therefore expected with nothing about FE.
You demand this and that from us, yet your own scientists can not provide the same thing for RET. That is not a derailment; it is pointing out that you people are hypocrites.
Being THE expert on UA, what is the UA explanation for the observed expansion on/in the "dome" since YOU brought it up and this is a discussion about UA not RET? If you are going to push UA, you should know something about it, yes?
I have never claimed that I follow the domed Earth model. Please, provide a quote that says I do.
Where is the energy for UA coming from?
Where is the energy for the continued expansion of your RET universe coming from? Your scientists will admit that they do not know. We do the same.
1) So on top of an expanding universe now you are further derailing to Dark Energy? What do these have ANYTHING to do with the topic? How does UA explain all this you are bringing up? How does an expanding universe or Dark Energy apply to UA? Trying to get back on topic...
2) So your proof of UA is that scientists can't do something in RET?
3) I said "dome". So your model goes out to infinity? There is "outer space"? You can have satellites? I misunderstood your model. Please explain the sky in your model and how far it goes - especially the Sun and Moon. How and why are the Sun and Moon affected by UA?
4) RET scientists theorized the "Big Bang". What is the UA theory?
Notice, I am TRYING to get this thread back on topic. Let's discuss UA and FE ... not try to prove/disprove RET.
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
You already let the secret out.
So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?
-
Why on top of the mountains there's less gravity? If the UA exists then it shouldn't matter where you are you'll wiegh the same.
On a round Earth, why is gravity not greater on a mountain where there is more mass under your feet?
I must say, that is a very good point. could gravity simply be because of denpressure?
No it can not be because of denpressure. Do I need to post my experiment videos again?
-
That has been answered lots of time,
Are you an alt? You have 34 posts. Having alts is against the rules. You are being investigated.
-
That has been answered lots of time,
Are you an alt? You have 34 posts. Having alts is against the rules. You are being investigated.
No I have just been reading the forum for a while.
Edit: Wait, FEer are investigating me, they normally come to the wrong conclusion, well I'm scewed.
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
You already let the secret out.
So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
You already let the secret out.
So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?
Please don't quote yourself gratuitously. If you did not receive an answer, it is probably because people could not understand what you were asking or they thought it was a dumb question. In this case, I thought it was both.
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
You already let the secret out.
So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?
Please don't quote yourself gratuitously. If you did not receive an answer, it is probably because people could not understand what you were asking or they thought it was a dumb question. In this case, I thought it was both.
More like you don't have a response. Kind of like how you still haven't answered it. Just do your best ad hoc so I can destroy you.
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
You already let the secret out.
So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?
Please don't quote yourself gratuitously. If you did not receive an answer, it is probably because people could not understand what you were asking or they thought it was a dumb question. In this case, I thought it was both.
More like you don't have a response. Kind of like how you still haven't answered it. Just do your best ad hoc so I can destroy you.
I don't have a response to what? A shitpost question? You are asking for me to speculate about things in order to set me up. I was not born yesterday. ::)
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
You already let the secret out.
So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?
Please don't quote yourself gratuitously. If you did not receive an answer, it is probably because people could not understand what you were asking or they thought it was a dumb question. In this case, I thought it was both.
More like you don't have a response. Kind of like how you still haven't answered it. Just do your best ad hoc so I can destroy you.
I don't have a response to what? A shitpost question? You are asking for me to speculate about things in order to set me up. I was not born yesterday. ::)
I's only a shitpost question because you know nothing about physics.
Is the UA a force?
-
Are you asking me a philosophical question?
No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.
If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum? Is this just another sh*tpost?
You already let the secret out.
So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?
Please don't quote yourself gratuitously. If you did not receive an answer, it is probably because people could not understand what you were asking or they thought it was a dumb question. In this case, I thought it was both.
More like you don't have a response. Kind of like how you still haven't answered it. Just do your best ad hoc so I can destroy you.
I don't have a response to what? A shitpost question? You are asking for me to speculate about things in order to set me up. I was not born yesterday. ::)
I's only a shitpost question because you know nothing about physics.
Is the UA a force?
Can something accelerate with no forces being applied to it?
-
It depends on how you look at it. Gravitation can be said to do this. Theengineer is now claiming it doesn't. Either way if the UA is a force, why doesn't it accelerate different masses at different rates?
-
It depends on how you look at it. Gravitation can be said to do this. Theengineer is now claiming it doesn't. Either way if the UA is a force, why doesn't it accelerate different masses at different rates?
It is accelerating everything at the same rate. It could be that the rate is simply a universal law, sort of a constant.
-
If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?
-
If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?
If you put a 1 kg toy boat and a .5 kg toy boat in a flowing stream, they will eventually both go the same speed. Also, if a fat man and a skinny man are both in the same car and the accelerator is depressed, they will both accelerate at the same rate along with the car that is much more massive than either of the two.
-
If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?
If you put a 1 kg toy boat and a .5 kg toy boat in a flowing stream, they will eventually both go the same speed.
That is not true. There acceleration will both end up at zero but there velocity will not necessarily be the same. Just like the objects terminal velocity would not be the same.
Also, if a fat man and a skinny man are both in the same car and the accelerator is depressed, they will both accelerate at the same rate along with the car that is much more massive than either of the two.
The car is able to supply two different forces. For instance the fat man will sink into the car seat more.
-
So I looked through the answers and found basically nothing valuable.
The wind can blow on a sail without blowing on things that are on the other side of the sail.
Irrelevant.
If you are going to answer any question, please point out which one you are asnwering and answer it directly without irrelevant comparisions that explains nothing and only proves you are open for word games.
My question would be about energy. To accelerate something (as opposed to constant velocity - assuming no friction), don't you need energy somewhere?
What is causing the RET universe to constantly expand when gravity should have caused it to begin collapsing long ago? Your scientists don't have all their answers, but you expect us to know everything. Have you ever heard of double standards?
Irrelevant. Stop pushing RET stuff here. We are discussing UA, not explanding of the universe.
Where is the energy for UA coming from?
Where is the energy for the continued expansion of your RET universe coming from? Your scientists will admit that they do not know. We do the same.
Someone on this forum made a math and found out that the UA would require an energy equivalent to mass of the Earth to accelerate the Earth for few years. Anyway, irrelevant answer.
So... most of the questions that I have asked in OP remain unanswered. Just some mere hand-waving and irrelevant arguments.
Where is your serious and direct answer?
What is interesting me the most is how the Moon and the Sun are accelerating with the same rate and keep the same velocity as the Earth even though the Earth is some sort of shield vs UA that blocks the force apparently enough to neglect it on the surface?
-
Anyone?
Or you just ignore the thread like it never existed so you could stand in your believes "undefeated"?
That will be like... 4th or 5th serious thread that I have started and that is basically left to die.
Do you know your own model? Why is it so hard to answer questions directlly about your own stuff?
-
Jroa runs away when the thread becomes too difficult.
-
What did I run away from? Brouwer going into every thread and declaring that everything people say is irrelevant? Sorry, but I have been done with his shit for weeks. No matter what anyone says, he just says it is irrelevant. I actually think he is an alt of Parsifal, but I can't prove it. So, I quit responding to him. I did not run away.
Now, if someone wants to actually have a big kid discussion, I would be perfectly happy to oblige. Kind of sad that there are not very many big kids around these days. :(
-
This post is still waiting for a rebuttal.
If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?
If you put a 1 kg toy boat and a .5 kg toy boat in a flowing stream, they will eventually both go the same speed.
That is not true. There acceleration will both end up at zero but there velocity will not necessarily be the same. Just like the objects terminal velocity would not be the same.
Also, if a fat man and a skinny man are both in the same car and the accelerator is depressed, they will both accelerate at the same rate along with the car that is much more massive than either of the two.
The car is able to supply two different forces. For instance the fat man will sink into the car seat more.
-
Brouwer going into every thread and declaring that everything people say is irrelevant?
Not really.
Sorry, but I have been done with his shit for weeks. No matter what anyone says, he just says it is irrelevant.
Nope, if you are unable to provide a direct answer and play question-to-question games that lead to nowhere, how is that helpful or relevant?
If I am asking about the UA, you are just giving me some "wind blowing sail" that has nothing to do with the UA and does not explain anything regarding UA at all. I am expecting some science in your answer, not just random sentence about sailing.
If I am asking how two planets are affected by the gravitational force, I am expecting explaination for the planets, not for apples thrown to the air.
I actually think he is an alt of Parsifal, but I can't prove it.
Who is Parsifal? Also, you cannot prove this, because it is a false statement.
Now, if someone wants to actually have a big kid discussion, I would be perfectly happy to oblige. Kind of sad that there are not very many big kids around these days. :(
I would be happy if you could answer questions directly. I do want to have a discussion, but posting over and over things that provide no direct answer, changing the topic or spamming irrelevant things is what I am facing in most of my serious threads. That being said, you were the one doing this in one of my threads...
-
No matter what you ask, you are expecting a round Earth answer and will declare anything else to be irrelevant, you slimy scumbag. Any answer you get is irrelevant unless it has to do with the round Earth, so you spam up the fora crying that you do not get answers, when you have gotten hundreds.
-
No matter what you ask, you are expecting a round Earth answer and will declare anything else to be irrelevant,
No, I do expect the FE answer. You are just completely blind to this.
you slimy scumbag.
Behave, you are in public place.
Any answer you get is irrelevant unless it has to do with the round Earth,
You are wrong, as usual.
so you spam up the fora crying that you do not get answers, when you have gotten hundreds.
I do not remember receiving the answer to following questions/problems:
1. How far is the Sun from the Earth, with proper explaination.
2. How things dissapear bottom first behind the horizon, with proper explaination.
3. How does the UA work (regarding this thread)?
4. How does the equinox over the equator work?
5. Why there is no FE map?
6. How do stars rotate around SCP in southern hemisphere, with proper explaination.
7. How a flat magnet disc can have two poles on the same (top) side?
Possibly more that I may not remember at this moment.
What I actually received for each question is:
1. Flawed argument and no further suggestions.
2. Flawed hand-waved argument and no further suggestion.
3. Hand-waved (irrelevant) argument for 1 of many questions.
4. No answer at all.
5. No real answer - just shirking based on lack of resources.
6. Celestial gears with no explanation and description.
7. No answer at all - only evasion from every single FEer.
Now, please go back to the OP. If you have answers regarding your model (FE one) and are willing to explain anything with a proper arugment, few people will be greatful. Including me.
-
Quit derailing. This thread is about UA. Your post is irrelevant.
-
How does the UA work?
Plenty questions asked, still plenty to answer.
Few more questions to your "theory":
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects).
1. When the object is sufficiently massive?
2. Why only sufficiently massive objects are accelerated?
3. Why the effect on smaller bodies is negligible? It should be measurable after all.
4. If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...
5. Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?
-
Quit derailing.
LOL! The Derail King has spoken.
-
Nope, if you are unable to provide a direct answer and play question-to-question games that lead to nowhere, how is that helpful or relevant?
Oh, look what you did there...
Another mighty victory for the forces of circular sock-puppet logic!
-
In its justification for the use Universal Accelerator in lieu of gravitation FE supporters will try to bring up Einstein’s Equivalence Principle.
The article at this website http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf (http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf) discusses where the Equivalence Principle can be validly applied.
That is really a very telling article and should be read before anyone criticises too severely what I put here.
In its simplest form the FET uses the Equivalence Principle to replace the gravitational field observed on the earth's surface. I contend that this is not a valid application of the Equivalence Principle.
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
— Einstein, 1907
This very brief statement of Einstein needs a little qualification. If the reference system under consideration is not small enough for the gravitational field to be considered constant over its range then there can be no complete physical equivalence.
This is stressed in the fuller presentation of the Equivalence Principle.
Importance of the Equivalence Principle
An equivalent formulation of the Principle of Equivalence is that at any local (that is, sufficiently small) region in spacetime it is possible to formulate the equations governing physical laws such that the effect of gravitation can be neglected. This in turn means that the Special Theory of Relativity is valid for that particular situation, and this in turn allows a number of things to be deduced because the solution of the equations for the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond the scope of our course, but is not particularly difficult for those trained in the required mathematics. from http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html)
In the case of the earth we can readily measure variations in the gravitational field. These are due to predomonately to latitude and altitude, but there are more subtle variations due to the presence of ore bodies as used in gravimetric surveys for minerals.
As a result of this Universal Acceleration can replace a gravitational field only if the reference system (the whole earth) is sufficiently small for the gravitational field to be considered constant over the whole system.
This is clearly not satisfied, so the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the gravitational field. and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "gravitational field".
-
Are you claiming the Equivelance Principle is wrong? ???
-
Are you claiming the Equivelance Principle is wrong? ???
Nowhere did I claim that that the Equivalence Principle is wrong!
What I asserted was that it is completely unjustified to use the Equivalence Principle to replace gravity on the earth. The Equivalence Principle can only be applied to a region where the gravitational field is constant and the gravitation field on the earth is simply not constant.
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Maybe you could explain just how the gravitational acceleration is:
1) Lower as the altitude is increased - falling off as 1/R2 and measurements have been done from high altitude aircraft and balloons.
2) higher at the poles than at the equators.
Yes, I have seen explanations based on the gravitational effects (oops, that doesn't exist!) of the sun, moon and stars.
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.
Things tend to accelerate much easier when a force is applied. ::)
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Maybe you could explain just how the gravitational acceleration is:
1) Lower as the altitude is increased - falling off as 1/R2 and measurements have been done from high altitude aircraft and balloons.
2) higher at the poles than at the equators.
Yes, I have seen explanations based on the gravitational effects (oops, that doesn't exist!) of the sun, moon and stars.
You seem to have answered your own questions.
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Maybe you could explain just how the gravitational acceleration is:
1) Lower as the altitude is increased - falling off as 1/R2 and measurements have been done from high altitude aircraft and balloons.
2) higher at the poles than at the equators.
Yes, I have seen explanations based on the gravitational effects (oops, that doesn't exist!) of the sun, moon and stars.
You seem to have answered your own questions.
Well no, I am looking for how this can fit in with your "Universal Accelerator".
If the (tiny) sun, moon and stars have "gravitational effects" on earth why doesn't the much larger mass of the earth have a much larger "gravitational effect" on objects on the earth?
After all the "Flat Earth" must be roughly 25,000 miles in diameter (don't worry about arguing that now - I will tackle that later!) and who knows how thick, but it must be some tens of miles at the very least. Your sun is only some 32 miles in diameter and the "planets and stars" are supposedly very tiny.
So why doesn't the Flat Earth provide its own gravity?
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.
Things tend to accelerate much easier when a force is applied. ::)
So you are claiming the Equivalence Principle is a force? :P
I think you may be confusing cause and effect.
-
When did we change the topic from how the UA works to equivalence principle discussion?
3rd page and we are still at where we started - nowhere.
-
When did we change the topic from how the UA works to equivalence principle discussion?
3rd page and we are still at where we started - nowhere.
Sorry, guilty as charged. In mitigation I was trying to show that the application of UA to even the flat earth is invalid!
-
Brouwer is so mad and angry. I am sorry for defeating your round Earth beliefs. Why do you always get so defensive when you are defeated? I think I answered my own question. lol
-
Brouwer is so mad and angry. I am sorry for defeating your round Earth beliefs. Why do you always get so defensive when you are defeated? I think I answered my own question. lol
I don't agree that you are defeating our round Earth beliefs. UA itself must be a constant acceleration.
My whole point has been that I fail to see how the "gravitational forces" of the moving celestial bodies can possibly explain how the gravitational field on earth is predictably lower at high altitude and higher at each pole.
Surely if the variations from a constant were due to the moving celestial bodies then these variations would move around the earth and not stay in the same location as observed.
Also no-one has ever given a sensible rebuttal of the original Cavendish experiment or the numerous later experiment that give quite consistent results.
This is not to claim that all gravitation or even the universal gravitational constant is completely understood. In fact the measuments of the "universal gravitational constant" appear to show a very slight periodic variation over time, yet no sign of long term variation - as yet there is no explanation of this (that I know of).
I know I run the risk of what I accuse many FE supporters (esp Charles and Jeranism!) of, that is a failure to under the opposing model - I try to understand it, hence these questions.
See http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html) if you want more ammunition!
-
You are not Brouwer, are you? An alt, maybe?
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.
Things tend to accelerate much easier when a force is applied. ::)
What does thathave to do with the stupid claim that the EP is a force?
-
You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. :-\
Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.
Things tend to accelerate much easier when a force is applied. ::)
What does thathave to do with the stupid claim that the EP is a force?
What do any of your shitposts have to do with anything?
-
I see you learned your lesson.
-
I see you learned your lesson.
That your shitposts mean nothing? I learned that years ago.
-
If you say something stupid you will be called out on it. That is not a shitpost, it's you having no clue what you are talking about.
-
Have you ever looked in the mirror? Just wondering. lol
-
You are not Brouwer, are you? An alt, maybe?
No, but you claimed t have defeated "round Earth" beliefs - I believe I have a right to answer that.
-
You are not Brouwer, are you? An alt, maybe?
No, but you claimed t have defeated "round Earth" beliefs - I believe I have a right to answer that.
Please, provide a citation for these outlandish claims.
-
Brouwer is so mad and angry. I am sorry for defeating your round Earth beliefs. Why do you always get so defensive when you are defeated? I think I answered my own question. lol
jroa, please stop derailing the thread and making low content posts. If you look for a place for that, go to complete nonsense or angry ratings. Based on your post data, you like those places.
This thread is about UA from the FE model, not about round beliefes. We are debating UA principles. ONLY.
And again, asking about the FE model details I received NOTHING.
What makes me mad and angry is a complete lack of the ability to provide straight and direct answers to simply stated questions. I cannot even discuss because there are no real answers to anything.
-
Have you ever looked in the mirror? Just wondering. lol
The words of a defeated baby.
-
Have you ever looked in the mirror? Just wondering. lol
The words of a defeated baby.
Let me know if you ever come to NC and I can show you how much of a baby I am, indoor socker boy.
-
Have you ever looked in the mirror? Just wondering. lol
The words of a defeated baby.
Let me know if you ever come to NC and I can show you how much of a baby I am, indoor socker boy.
Rofl.
-
Brouwer is so mad and angry. I am sorry for defeating your round Earth beliefs. Why do you always get so defensive when you are defeated? I think I answered my own question. lol
jroa, please stop derailing the thread and making low content posts. If you look for a place for that, go to complete nonsense or angry ratings. Based on your post data, you like those places.
This thread is about UA from the FE model, not about round beliefes. We are debating UA principles. ONLY.
And again, asking about the FE model details I received NOTHING.
What makes me mad and angry is a complete lack of the ability to provide straight and direct answers to simply stated questions. I cannot even discuss because there are no real answers to anything.
Blah blah blah, everything anybody says is irrelevant and derailment. Blah blah blah.
-
Brouwer is so mad and angry. I am sorry for defeating your round Earth beliefs. Why do you always get so defensive when you are defeated? I think I answered my own question. lol
jroa, please stop derailing the thread and making low content posts. If you look for a place for that, go to complete nonsense or angry ratings. Based on your post data, you like those places.
This thread is about UA from the FE model, not about round beliefes. We are debating UA principles. ONLY.
And again, asking about the FE model details I received NOTHING.
What makes me mad and angry is a complete lack of the ability to provide straight and direct answers to simply stated questions. I cannot even discuss because there are no real answers to anything.
I already shut him up when I pointed out that if the UA was a force it would accelerate different masses at different rates.
-
Oh, I am sorry. Did sokarul say something that he thought was intelligent? lol
-
Oh, I am sorry. Did sokarul say something that he thought was intelligent? lol
rofl
I would run away too if I was you.
-
Oh, I am sorry. Did sokarul say something that he thought was intelligent? lol
rofl
I would run away too if I was you.
Pee boy is getting mad? Perhaps you should contact the admins again so I can't post the picture that you posted again? lol
-
yawn
-
Please stop posting low content in the serious fora. You have been warned and banned for this in the past. Did you not learn your lesson?
-
If the UA is a force, it would accelerate different masses at different rates. Thus the moon and sun could not be locked in planes above the earth.
-
Please, cite your sources for this outlandish claim.
-
F=m*a
where
F equals force
m equals mass
a equals acceleration
-
F=m*a
where
F equals force
m equals mass
a equals acceleration
lol, nice citation. :D
-
Are you having trouble with the simple equation?
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
So like 99 percent of your on topic post?
Check out any physics book if you want a source.
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
So like 99 percent of your on topic post?
Check out any physics book if you want a source.
Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from? I want to know which ones to avoid. lol
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
So like 99 percent of your on topic post?
Check out any physics book if you want a source.
Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from? I want to know which ones to avoid. lol
We all know you avoid all physics books.
Do you need me to google F=ma for you?
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
So like 99 percent of your on topic post?
Check out any physics book if you want a source.
Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from? I want to know which ones to avoid. lol
We all know you avoid all physics books.
Do you need me to google F=ma for you?
Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago. Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books?
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
So like 99 percent of your on topic post?
Check out any physics book if you want a source.
Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from? I want to know which ones to avoid. lol
We all know you avoid all physics books.
Do you need me to google F=ma for you?
Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago. Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books?
But you said the UA was a force. Are you now saying it's not a force? Are you saying it's not valid here?
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
So like 99 percent of your on topic post?
Check out any physics book if you want a source.
Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from? I want to know which ones to avoid. lol
We all know you avoid all physics books.
Do you need me to google F=ma for you?
Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago. Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books?
But you said the UA was a force. Are you now saying it's not a force?
Are you saying that applying a force to something does not cause it to accelerate? You seem to be very confused about a lot of things. I hope you get help for yourself.
-
No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is. lol.
You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?
You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason. lol
So like 99 percent of your on topic post?
Check out any physics book if you want a source.
Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from? I want to know which ones to avoid. lol
We all know you avoid all physics books.
Do you need me to google F=ma for you?
Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago. Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books?
But you said the UA was a force. Are you now saying it's not a force?
Are you saying that applying a force to something does not cause it to accelerate? You seem to be very confused about a lot of things. I hope you get help for yourself.
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
-
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. ::)
-
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. ::)
I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.
-
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. ::)
I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.
Universal Acceleration is an effect. An acceleration is caused by a force. Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?
-
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. ::)
I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.
Universal Acceleration is an effect. An acceleration is caused by a force. Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?
What about general relativity and bent space time? It's not a force but can cause acceleration, depending on who you ask.
-
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. ::)
I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.
Universal Acceleration is an effect. An acceleration is caused by a force. Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?
What about general relativity and bent space time? It's not a force but can cause acceleration, depending on who you ask.
Oh, I see. You have never looked up the difference between a cause and effect. Nice to know.
-
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. ::)
I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.
Universal Acceleration is an effect. An acceleration is caused by a force. Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?
What about general relativity and bent space time? It's not a force but can cause acceleration, depending on who you ask.
Oh, I see. You have never looked up the difference between a cause and effect. Nice to know.
Source?
-
Source?
Your posts.
-
Which one?
-
All of them, pretty much.
-
All of them, pretty much.
In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?
You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.
-
All of them, pretty much.
In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?
You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.
sokarul and his little thoughts. I should move this to AR or CN.
-
All of them, pretty much.
In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?
You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.
sokarul and his little thoughts. I should move this to AR or CN.
You think a post were I copy you should be moved to CN. Good job you.
-
sokarul and his little thoughts. I should move this to AR or CN.
Translation: "Crap, I think he's right, time to move it to a place it won't be taken seriously because it won't be read"
-
What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?
You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. ::)
I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.
Universal Acceleration is an effect. An acceleration is caused by a force. Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?
6 pages and all we have come to is this? WOW...
-
6 pages and all we know is that the acceleration is caused by the force, but we still do not know what it accelerates, why the Moon and the Sun will not collide with the Earth etc...
-
Well, since you quoted me, I'll answer:
1. Acceleration rate is not constant.
The acceleration of the FE due to the UA would be a constant 9.81m/s^2.
2. There is no "outside", so how can we talk about any FOR not being accelerated?
Who said there is no "outside"? You can take any inertial FOR and talk about that one.
3. What does UA accelerate?
Seemingly everything in contact with it.
But... why? Isn't UA supposed to accelerate EVERYTHING?
Everything in contact with it, yes.
Does the UA accelerate me sitting on my chair or it does not?
Yes. But not directly.
If yes, then why do I stop being accelerated by the UA when I jump?
Because you are no longer being indirectly accelerated by the UA.
If no, then why does it accelerate the Earth but not me?
Because you are obviously not in direct contact with it.
Any clear and explicit explaination?
See above.
-
All of them, pretty much.
In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?
You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.
Says the discount chemist that claims I stated I had proven General Relativity. Who also can't provide a single quote of mine to provide as evidence, yet provides posts of his, as evidence of my statement.
-
2. There is no "outside", so how can we talk about any FOR not being accelerated?
Who said there is no "outside"? You can take any inertial FOR and talk about that one.
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
If no, then why does it accelerate the Earth but not me?
Because you are obviously not in direct contact with it.
How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?
Thanks for all remaning answers.
These are more questions that were set later. They are based on the wiki page. It shares some light on the idea why UA may not work on every object in the Universe.
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects).
When the object is sufficiently massive?
Why only sufficiently massive objects are accelerated?
Why the effect on smaller bodies is negligible? It should be measurable after all.
If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...
Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?
-
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
Drop something. Or jump. There you go: an inertial FOR.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?
Simplified answer (applicable for most things on the FE and most celestial objects; this list is also FOR dependent):
1. Is it accelerating at a minimum of 9.8m/s^2? Yes, go to #2. No, go to #5.
2. Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1? Yes, go to #3. No, go to #5.
3. When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise) does the object retain the acceleration described in #1 and #2? Yes, go to #4. No, go to #5.
4. The object is affected by the UA (what I have termed Dark Energy).
5. The object is not affected by the UA/DE.
If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...
The FE creates a type of 'bow shock' within the DEF (Dark Energy Field). This prevents the objects on the top of the FE from being directly affected by the UA/DE. The field has nearly fully collapsed at about the altitude of the Sun and Moon, allowing for their suspension above the FE.
Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?
Well, if the FE was not accelerating 'so regularly' we wouldn't be around to know it.
-
There's still no explanation for differences in said acceleration around the world.
Since the acceleration is smaller as you climb a mountain and as you near the Equator, it means the UA is as stupid as the flat earth.
But hey, let's wait for the wrongineer to come up with another trolling text trying to ignore all that.
-
If no, then why does it accelerate the Earth but not me?
Because you are obviously not in direct contact with it.
Then obviously the acceleration isn't universal.
-
Which is obviously why I termed it 'Dark Energy'.
-
Have you ever looked in the mirror? Just wondering. lol
The words of a defeated baby.
Let me know if you ever come to NC and I can show you how much of a baby I am, indoor socker boy.
What does this mean? I've genuinely no idea....are you asking him to come and have sex with you?
-
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
Drop something. Or jump. There you go: an inertial FOR.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
Since you keep wanting to start fights, may you fix this or do you need a "discount" chemist to fix it for you?
Says the discount chemist that claims I stated I had proven General Relativity. Who also can't provide a single quote of mine to provide as evidence, yet provides posts of his, as evidence of my statement.
Say the engineer who thinks he can use a theory to prove scientific arguments.
-
Have you ever looked in the mirror? Just wondering. lol
The words of a defeated baby.
Let me know if you ever come to NC and I can show you how much of a baby I am, indoor socker boy.
What does this mean? I've genuinely no idea....are you asking him to come and have sex with you?
Judging by how much he hates people playing sports I think he is a fat ass and wants to eat me.
-
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
Drop something. Or jump. There you go: an inertial FOR.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
Since you keep wanting to start fights, may you fix this or do you need a "discount" chemist to fix it for you?
Uh, what?
Say the engineer who thinks he can use a theory to prove scientific arguments.
So, I'm still waiting on that quote...
-
Which is obviously why I termed it 'Dark Energy'.
And why would you go and do a thing like that?
-
From the little I have read the Einstein's "Equivalence Theory" can only be applied over a region of space and time where "g" is constant. Here g is taken to be the net acceleration we feel as a result of gravity and other effects.
This is clearly not true for the whole surface area of the earth.
We find that at sea level g varies from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles - only about 0.5%, but quite measurable.
Also an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%, neglecting any change in bouancy of the less dense atmosphere. (Admittedly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude), but the I don't believe the figures are much disputed).
So if the UA theory is going to rely on the "Equivalence Theory" for justification, some rational explanation for these variations must be provided. This explanation should show why changes in "g"are detected as a result of massive ore bodies - used in mineral exploration.
And, please don't come up with the "gravitational effects of the sun moon and other celestial bodies" for obvious reasons!
-
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
Drop something. Or jump. There you go: an inertial FOR.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
Since you keep wanting to start fights, may you fix this or do you need a "discount" chemist to fix it for you?
Uh, what?
You sure get confused a lot, do you have Alzheimer's disease. Do you need me to fix your incorrect statement or are you going to do it?
Say the engineer who thinks he can use a theory to prove scientific arguments.
So, I'm still waiting on that quote...
I'm still waiting for you to learn what evidence is.
-
You sure get confused a lot, do you have Alzheimer's disease. Do you need me to fix your incorrect statement or are you going to do it?
Sure, Discount Chemist, go ahead.
I'm still waiting for you to learn what evidence is.
So that is still a 'no' on the quote, then?
-
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
Drop something.* Or jump.* There you go: an inertial FOR.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
*In a vacuum.
-
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
Drop something.* Or jump.* There you go: an inertial FOR.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
*In a vacuum.
Idiot.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)
-
How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?
Drop something.* Or jump.* There you go: an inertial FOR.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
*In a vacuum.
Idiot.
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)
Are you saying air is massless?
-
Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.
-
Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.
Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing
Also once again, you change the subject. For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark
-
Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.
Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing
Also once again, you change the subject. For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark
So no quote, then? <--- Question mark
Oh, and this:
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)
-
Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.
Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing
Read my post again. You clearly didn't comprehend any of it the first time.
Also once again, you change the subject. For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark
So no quote, then? <--- Question mark
Oh, and this:
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)
Objects under aerodynamic drag are not inertial.
-
How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?
Simplified answer (applicable for most things on the FE and most celestial objects; this list is also FOR dependent):
1. Is it accelerating at a minimum of 9.8m/s^2? Yes, go to #2. No, go to #5.
2. Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1? Yes, go to #3. No, go to #5.
3. When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise) does the object retain the acceleration described in #1 and #2? Yes, go to #4. No, go to #5.
4. The object is affected by the UA (what I have termed Dark Energy).
5. The object is not affected by the UA/DE.
Ok, so:;
A) The part of the Earth near the equator, where the acceleration is below 9.8 (~9.78) is not affected by the UA.
B) The object accelerating at 10 m/s^2 but with tilted vector is not affected by the UA. That means, anything rotating around the Earth is not, because their vectors aren't normal.
C) Object accelerating in the opposite direction to the Earth can also be affected by the UA. So the UA can accelerate objects in two opposite directions.
D) If UA accelerates stuff at 9.8m/s^2, how is anything above the shield (see further part of the post) able to move with higher acceleration?
E) Anything outside of the Earth that is moving "slower" (lower acceleration) is not affected by the UA. Meteors that hit the surface for instance.
Etc. Your description makes no sense at all. It is very selective and basically causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe not to be affected by the UA.
If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...
The FE creates a type of 'bow shock' within the DEF (Dark Energy Field). This prevents the objects on the top of the FE from being directly affected by the UA/DE. The field has nearly fully collapsed at about the altitude of the Sun and Moon, allowing for their suspension above the FE.
This "about the altitude of the Sun and Moon" collapse is so convinient that I just do not believe it. Also, the shiled would have to form a cylinder above the disc to ~map the reality. I find this hard to believe too.
Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?
Well, if the FE was not accelerating 'so regularly' we wouldn't be around to know it.
This answers the non-existing question. Try again.
-
Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.
Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing
Read my post again. You clearly didn't comprehend any of it the first time.
Also once again, you change the subject. For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark
So no quote, then? <--- Question mark
Oh, and this:
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)
Objects under aerodynamic drag are not inertial.
You can't read, can you?
For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics.
LOLZ!!
-
How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?
Simplified answer (applicable for most things on the FE and most celestial objects; this list is also FOR dependent):
1. Is it accelerating at a minimum of 9.8m/s^2? Yes, go to #2. No, go to #5.
2. Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1? Yes, go to #3. No, go to #5.
3. When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise) does the object retain the acceleration described in #1 and #2? Yes, go to #4. No, go to #5.
4. The object is affected by the UA (what I have termed Dark Energy).
5. The object is not affected by the UA/DE.
Ok, so:;
A) The part of the Earth near the equator, where the acceleration is below 9.8 (~9.78) is not affected by the UA.
Uh, no.
B) The object accelerating at 10 m/s^2 but with tilted vector is not affected by the UA. That means, anything rotating around the Earth is not, because their vectors aren't normal.
Uh, no.
C) Object accelerating in the opposite direction to the Earth can also be affected by the UA. So the UA can accelerate objects in two opposite directions.
Uh, no.
D) If UA accelerates stuff at 9.8m/s^2, how is anything above the shield (see further part of the post) able to move with higher acceleration?
Notice the 'minimum' part of #1?
E) Anything outside of the Earth that is moving "slower" (lower acceleration) is not affected by the UA. Meteors that hit the surface for instance.
Uh, no.
Etc. Your description makes no sense at all. It is very selective and basically causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe not to be affected by the UA.
Uh, no. Your failure of comprehension causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe to not be affected by the UA.
This "about the altitude of the Sun and Moon" collapse is so convinient that I just do not believe it.
So you don't believe in the Earth or gravitation, or really any of the fundamental forces then, since their values in the universe are so convenient as to no be believable?
Also, the shiled would have to form a cylinder above the disc to ~map the reality. I find this hard to believe too.
A cylinder huh? What reality does that map to?
Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?
Well, if the FE was not accelerating 'so regularly' we wouldn't be around to know it.
This answers the non-existing question. Try again.
Uh, that is a direct answer to your question: "Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?"
-
Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.
Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing
Read my post again. You clearly didn't comprehend any of it the first time.
Also once again, you change the subject. For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark
So no quote, then? <--- Question mark
Oh, and this:
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)
Objects under aerodynamic drag are not inertial.
You can't read, can you?
So it's agreed objects falling in atmosphere are not inertia.
For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics.
LOLZ!!
[/quote]
Gravitation is acceleration.
-
Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :
Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.
This seems completely at odds with the idea of UA, any explanation?
-
Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :
Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.
This seems completely at odds with the idea of UA, any explanation?
Have you never heard of variations in readings of test equipment? Are you tolling, or are you really this dumb?
-
What about variations?
-
What about variations?
Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results? I thought you were some kind of chemist. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
-
What about variations?
Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results? I thought you were some kind of chemist. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
You have no reading comprehension at all. Where did I say two instruments can never display different results?
-
Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :
Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.
This seems completely at odds with the idea of UA, any explanation?
Have you never heard of variations in readings of test equipment? Are you tolling, or are you really this dumb?
Don't be intentionally obtuse! Why on earth would exploration companies spend millions on gravimetric surveys with instrument showing sufficient "variations in readings of test equipment" to render that readings unreliable.
And, if "variations in readings of test equipment" is the cause of the variation of "g" with latitude and altitude, why are the readings consistent.
This is something I can never understand with flat Earthers: One divergent measurement comes up that questions any tiny aspect of the globe, and all the Flat Earthers are over it like a rash! Some "Scientist" like Miles Mathis (you know - he of the "π = 4" fame) comes along questioning Cavendish, and suddenly everyone says G, gravity does not exist etc, etc. I see it all the time, but I had thought that you at least were a bit about this tactic.
My whole point has been that, UA should never have been applied to a region where the gravitational field is not constant, unless there is sound reasoning explaining these anomalies.
-
What about variations?
Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results? I thought you were some kind of chemist. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
You have no reading comprehension at all. Where did I say two instruments can never display different results?
You are the one who is confused about variations, not me.
-
So no quote then?
-
Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :
Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.
This seems completely at odds with the idea of UA, any explanation?
Have you never heard of variations in readings of test equipment? Are you tolling, or are you really this dumb?
Don't be intentionally obtuse! Why on earth would exploration companies spend millions on gravimetric surveys with instrument showing sufficient "variations in readings of test equipment" to render that readings unreliable.
And, if "variations in readings of test equipment" is the cause of the variation of "g" with latitude and altitude, why are the readings consistent.
This is something I can never understand with flat Earthers: One divergent measurement comes up that questions any tiny aspect of the globe, and all the Flat Earthers are over it like a rash! Some "Scientist" like Miles Mathis (you know - he of the "π = 4" fame) comes along questioning Cavendish, and suddenly everyone says G, gravity does not exist etc, etc. I see it all the time, but I had thought that you at least were a bit about this tactic.
My whole point has been that, UA should never have been applied to a region where the gravitational field is not constant, unless there is sound reasoning explaining these anomalies.
Why does the US government spend $14,000 for a toilet seat? You seem like a very gullible person.
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
-
Why does the US government spend $14,000 for a toilet seat? You seem like a very gullible person.
You shouldn't state a myth and then call him gullible.
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
Your confusion is about variations. I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about. Is this a new debating technique for you?
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
Your confusion is about variations. I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about. Is this a new debating technique for you?
So still no quote then?
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
Your confusion is about variations. I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about. Is this a new debating technique for you?
So still no quote then?
You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations. I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
Your confusion is about variations. I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about. Is this a new debating technique for you?
So still no quote then?
You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations. I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.
Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?
-
What about variations?
Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results? I thought you were some kind of chemist. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
Since no reputable company could possibly hire an idiot who writes as poorly as sokarul, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been the affirmative action (poor GPA, bad writing skills, low IQ) hire that is required of most companies. Seeing as there is no way he could work for a competitive wage against his peers, I have again come to the conclusion that he must be paid at a lower wage and receive the most menial, unimportant tasks the company has (like those given to summer interns). Thus, sokarul is now referred to as the Discount Chemist.
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
Your confusion is about variations. I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about. Is this a new debating technique for you?
So still no quote then?
You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations. I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.
Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?
Perhaps the question mark makes me thing that you do not know something. ::)
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
Your confusion is about variations. I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about. Is this a new debating technique for you?
So still no quote then?
You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations. I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.
Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?
Perhaps the question mark makes me thing(sic) that you do not know something. ::)
Thing? or Think?
Question marks mean I'm asking a question. It's in the name.
-
What about variations?
Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results? I thought you were some kind of chemist. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
Since no reputable company could possibly hire an idiot who writes as poorly as sokarul, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been the affirmative action (poor GPA, bad writing skills, low IQ) hire that is required of most companies. Seeing as there is no way he could work for a competitive wage against his peers, I have again come to the conclusion that he must be paid at a lower wage and receive the most menial, unimportant tasks the company has (like those given to summer interns). Thus, sokarul is now referred to as the Discount Chemist.
He did say once that they make him watch an oven all day. Even if he does work in some sort of lab, they could hire a temp to watch the oven. Maybe he is just a temp claiming to be what his idols are? I don't know.
-
So no quote then?
What about variations?
::) ::) ::)
Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it.
I'll wait.
Your confusion is about variations. I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about. Is this a new debating technique for you?
So still no quote then?
You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations. I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.
Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?
Perhaps the question mark makes me thing(sic) that you do not know something. ::)
Thing? or Think?
Question marks mean I'm asking a question. It's in the name.
If you are asking a question, it is because you do not know about something. Therefore, you have some confusion about the subject. ::)
-
What about variations?
Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results? I thought you were some kind of chemist. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
Since no reputable company could possibly hire an idiot who writes as poorly as sokarul, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been the affirmative action (poor GPA, bad writing skills, low IQ) hire that is required of most companies. Seeing as there is no way he could work for a competitive wage against his peers, I have again come to the conclusion that he must be paid at a lower wage and receive the most menial, unimportant tasks the company has (like those given to summer interns). Thus, sokarul is now referred to as the Discount Chemist.
lol
-
So it's agreed objects falling in atmosphere are not inertia.
Oh, you mean inertial. I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts. You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.
If you weren't so busy trying to play 'gotcha' all the time and actually read what I post, you wouldn't look like so much of an idiot.
To keep the explanation simple for the person I was explaining the concept to, I posted this thought experiment:
'Drop something. Or jump. There you go an inertial FOR.'
See? Simple and easily understood by the layman.
The very next statement is this very important caveat to the statement prior:
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
Which everyone apparently understood, except for you, since you were too busy trying to get a 'gotcha'. But I don't expect anything else from the Discount Chemist. Maybe read the post a little better next time and you won't look like such an idiot all the time.
-
So it's agreed objects falling in atmosphere are not inertia.
Oh, you mean inertial. I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts. You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.
I never said that. It's a shame you have to be so dishonest to try and make a point.
If you weren't so busy trying to play 'gotcha' all the time and actually read what I post, you wouldn't look like so much of an idiot.
You make yourself look like an idiot, not me.
To keep the explanation simple for the person I was explaining the concept to, I posted this thought experiment:
'Drop something. Or jump. There you go an inertial FOR.'
Yes you did.
See? Simple and easily understood by the layman.
Simplifying scientific concepts can lead to people not believing in it.
The very next statement is this very important caveat to the statement prior:
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
Normally that would be true, but you and jroa have shown that not to be true in your criticism against me.
Which everyone apparently understood, except for you, since you were too busy trying to get a 'gotcha'. But I don't expect anything else from the Discount Chemist. Maybe read the post a little better next time and you won't look like such an idiot all the time.
You said something wrong, and then tried to explain it further. That's ok to admit. Just simply come to terms with statements that you make which are incorrect and move on or even just add some thing and say you are clarifying what you meant. Not need to go shouting at me like I did something wrong. If you actually read what I say, you wouldn't have to be so aggressive towards me.
-
How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?
Simplified answer (applicable for most things on the FE and most celestial objects; this list is also FOR dependent):
1. Is it accelerating at a minimum of 9.8m/s^2? Yes, go to #2. No, go to #5.
2. Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1? Yes, go to #3. No, go to #5.
3. When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise) does the object retain the acceleration described in #1 and #2? Yes, go to #4. No, go to #5.
4. The object is affected by the UA (what I have termed Dark Energy).
5. The object is not affected by the UA/DE.
Ok, so:;
A) The part of the Earth near the equator, where the acceleration is below 9.8 (~9.78) is not affected by the UA.
Uh, no.
B) The object accelerating at 10 m/s^2 but with tilted vector is not affected by the UA. That means, anything rotating around the Earth is not, because their vectors aren't normal.
Uh, no.
C) Object accelerating in the opposite direction to the Earth can also be affected by the UA. So the UA can accelerate objects in two opposite directions.
Uh, no.
D) If UA accelerates stuff at 9.8m/s^2, how is anything above the shield (see further part of the post) able to move with higher acceleration?
Notice the 'minimum' part of #1?
E) Anything outside of the Earth that is moving "slower" (lower acceleration) is not affected by the UA. Meteors that hit the surface for instance.
Uh, no.
Etc. Your description makes no sense at all. It is very selective and basically causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe not to be affected by the UA.
Uh, no. Your failure of comprehension causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe to not be affected by the UA.
Thank you for providing exhausting explainations. Looks like you are just anothre time-waster here /sarcasm
This "about the altitude of the Sun and Moon" collapse is so convinient that I just do not believe it.
So you don't believe in the Earth or gravitation, or really any of the fundamental forces then, since their values in the universe are so convenient as to no be believable?
We are not discussing foundations of the gravitation, nor foundations of UA (where does the UA force come from), but its direct effects and observations. Changing the topic to does not help you.
Also, the shiled would have to form a cylinder above the disc to ~map the reality. I find this hard to believe too.
A cylinder huh? What reality does that map to?
You said that the shield collapses around the altitute of Sun/Moon. Which are, by FE "model" changing. But that does not matter now. What matters is that if something collapeses at set altitute, it forms ~flat imaginary surface there. Unless you come up with the other explaination.
Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?
Well, if the FE was not accelerating 'so regularly' we wouldn't be around to know it.
This answers the non-existing question. Try again.
Uh, that is a direct answer to your question: "Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?"
No. Let me expand:
1. Why other bodies are not accelerating perfectly upwards?
2. Why other bodies are changing their direction of motion even if they are affected (somehow) by the UA?
3. Why, even though the Earth is being hit by rocks from the space, big ones), the direction of Earth's vector never changes?
-
Oh, you mean inertial. I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts. You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.
I never said that. It's a shame you have to be so dishonest to try and make a point.
But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.
Lol! That is the entire sentence you posted.
-
Oh, you mean inertial. I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts. You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.
I never said that. It's a shame you have to be so dishonest to try and make a point.
But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.
Lol! That is the entire sentence you posted.
But then you look at the very next sentence." That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include."
So no, I never said a chemist wouldn't write a report. I said their report would contain more than just results.
Dishonesty at it's finest. I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you. We would have been shut down years ago if they were.
-
We are not discussing foundations of the gravitation, nor foundations of UA (where does the UA force come from), but its direct effects and observations. Changing the topic to does not help you.
Hmm, since my post illustrated the ridiculousness of your statement, there was no subject changing involved. I simply stated that if you don't believe in this convenience, then how can you believe in the others?
You said that the shield collapses around the altitute of Sun/Moon. Which are, by FE "model" changing. But that does not matter now. What matters is that if something collapeses at set altitute, it forms ~flat imaginary surface there. Unless you come up with the other explaination.
I believe I said "nearly fully collapsed" which in no way implies a step function in the openness of the field. In fact, it explicitly states the opposite.
No. Let me expand:
1. Why other bodies are not accelerating perfectly upwards?
Why would all other bodies accelerate perfectly upwards?
2. Why other bodies are changing their direction of motion even if they are affected (somehow) by the UA?
Uh, what?
3. Why, even though the Earth is being hit by rocks from the space, big ones), the direction of Earth's vector never changes?
We would all be dead if it did. Let's hope that doesn't happen for a long time. Although, it really doesn't matter, as in the end of the Universe, we all die anyway. Now or later, it is just a matter of time.
-
But then you look at the very next sentence." That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include."
Oh, so now it is OK to clarify a statement in the next sentence! So not only are you a discount chemist, but also a hypocrite.
I can't believe you didn't see that one coming. I set you up and you walked right into it. Idiot.
Dishonesty at it's finest.
I agree, your hypocrisy is extremely intellectually dishonest. And I use the term 'intellectually' in the loosest means possible.
I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.
Lolz!
-
But then you look at the very next sentence." That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include."
Oh, so now it is OK to clarify a statement in the next sentence! So not only are you a discount chemist, but also a hypocrite.
No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct. I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference?
I can't believe you didn't see that one coming. I set you up and you walked right into it. Idiot.
The only idiot is you.
Dishonesty at it's finest.
I agree, your hypocrisy is extremely intellectually dishonest. And I use the term 'intellectually' in the loosest means possible.
No hypocrisy here as explained. Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.
I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.
Lolz!
It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny.
-
We are not discussing foundations of the gravitation, nor foundations of UA (where does the UA force come from), but its direct effects and observations. Changing the topic to does not help you.
Hmm, since my post illustrated the ridiculousness of your statement, there was no subject changing involved. I simply stated that if you don't believe in this convenience, then how can you believe in the others?
Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.
You said that the shield collapses around the altitute of Sun/Moon. Which are, by FE "model" changing. But that does not matter now. What matters is that if something collapeses at set altitute, it forms ~flat imaginary surface there. Unless you come up with the other explaination.
I believe I said "nearly fully collapsed" which in no way implies a step function in the openness of the field. In fact, it explicitly states the opposite.
What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.
No. Let me expand:
1. Why other bodies are not accelerating perfectly upwards?
Why would all other bodies accelerate perfectly upwards?
Because only the ones whose acceleration vector is normal to the FE, are affected by the UA. This is your statement that you simply ignored to provide further explaination.
2. Why other bodies are changing their direction of motion even if they are affected (somehow) by the UA?
Uh, what?
How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?
3. Why, even though the Earth is being hit by rocks from the space, big ones), the direction of Earth's vector never changes?
We would all be dead if it did. Let's hope that doesn't happen for a long time. Although, it really doesn't matter, as in the end of the Universe, we all die anyway. Now or later, it is just a matter of time.
Expect we were hit by multiple heavy rocks in the past. Expect it does not take so much mass to change the direction of acceleration by 0.0001 degrees, which defies the rule of upward acceleration. To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?
-
No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct. I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference?
I didn't change anything. You said it in the same post. In fact, in the very next sentence!
But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.
You see the period there? That is the end of the sentence. An incorrect statement.
That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.
This is the very next sentence. A caveat to your post. Which is also incorrect, even taken on its own.
I only said correct things.
You made two incorrect statements, actually.
The only idiot is you.
Well, since I trapped you into doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing and you didn't realize it, I would say you are the idiot.
No hypocrisy here as explained.
Too bad your attempt to explain was idiotic and makes no sense. Well done, Discount Chemist.
Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.
Uh, no.
I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.
Lolz!
It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny.
I'm actually lol'ing at your continued failure to proof read your posts. Idiot.
-
Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.
You made a ridiculous statement, which I illustrated with an example, but it's irrelevant? As long as you now realize that your statement was ridiculous, we can move on, until it comes up again.
What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.
A cylinder goes from an open internal volume to a closed container in a step function. As for the rest of this quote, it makes no sense.
How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?
There is a component to the acceleration vector that is normal to the FE and equal to the acceleration of the FE. Otherwise, the FE would eventually have run into the Sun.
To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?
You are assuming that the DE does not provide a self-righting mechanism. Which would be obviously wrong. Otherwise, we would all be dead.
-
No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct. I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference?
I didn't change anything. You said it in the same post. In fact, in the very next sentence!
But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.
You see the period there? That is the end of the sentence. An incorrect statement.
That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.
This is the very next sentence. A caveat to your post. Which is also incorrect, even taken on its own.
I only said correct things.
You made two incorrect statements, actually.
The only idiot is you.
Well, since I trapped you into doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing and you didn't realize it, I would say you are the idiot.
No hypocrisy here as explained.
Too bad your attempt to explain was idiotic and makes no sense. Well done, Discount Chemist.
Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.
Uh, no.
I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.
Lolz!
It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny.
I'm actually lol'ing at your continued failure to proof read your posts. Idiot.
Maybe one day you will back up what you say.
-
Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.
You made a ridiculous statement, which I illustrated with an example, but it's irrelevant? As long as you now realize that your statement was ridiculous, we can move on, until it comes up again.
What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.
A cylinder goes from an open internal volume to a closed container in a step function. As for the rest of this quote, it makes no sense.
How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?
There is a component to the acceleration vector that is normal to the FE and equal to the acceleration of the FE. Otherwise, the FE would eventually have run into the Sun.
To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?
You are assuming that the DE does not provide a self-righting mechanism. Which would be obviously wrong. Otherwise, we would all be dead.
What else are you going to ad hoc about the UA?
-
No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct. I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference?
I didn't change anything. You said it in the same post. In fact, in the very next sentence!
But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.
You see the period there? That is the end of the sentence. An incorrect statement.
That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.
This is the very next sentence. A caveat to your post. Which is also incorrect, even taken on its own.
I only said correct things.
You made two incorrect statements, actually.
The only idiot is you.
Well, since I trapped you into doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing and you didn't realize it, I would say you are the idiot.
No hypocrisy here as explained.
Too bad your attempt to explain was idiotic and makes no sense. Well done, Discount Chemist.
Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.
Uh, no.
I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.
Lolz!
It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny.
I'm actually lol'ing at your continued failure to proof read your posts. Idiot.
Maybe one day you will back up what you say.
Wow, what a retort. Except my post is full of back up. So, failure, yet again, Discount Chemist.
-
Oh, so now it is not OK to make a shitty response! So not only are you a discount engineer, but also a hypocrite.
I can't believe you didn't see that one coming. I set you up and you walked right into it. Idiot.
-
I initially posted this basis question in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1746721#msg1746721 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1746721#msg1746721) and received no sensible reply, just silly answers.
So I tried again with http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1747140#msg1747140 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1747140#msg1747140), only jroa with inane responses!
So, I will try again:
From the little I have read Einstein's "Equivalence Theory" can only be applied over a region of space and time where "g" is constant. Here g is taken to be the net acceleration we feel as a result of gravity and other effects.
This is clearly not true for the whole surface area of the earth.
We find that at sea level g varies from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles - only about 0.5%, but quite measurable.
Also an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%, neglecting any change in buoyancy of the less dense atmosphere. (Admittedly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude), but the I don't believe the figures are much disputed).
So if the UA theory is going to rely on the "Equivalence Theory" for justification, some rational explanation for these variations must be provided. This explanation should show why changes in "g" are detected as a result of massive ore bodies - used in mineral exploration.
And, please don't come up with the "gravitational effects of the sun moon and other celestial bodies" for obvious reasons!
I just get answers like:
Have you never heard of variations in readings of test equipment? Are you tolling, or are you really this dumb?
My reply was:
Why on earth would exploration companies spend millions on gravimetric surveys with instrument showing sufficient "variations in readings of test equipment" to render that readings unreliable.
And, if "variations in readings of test equipment" is the cause of the variation of "g" with latitude and altitude, why are the readings consistent?
My whole point has been that, UA should never have been applied to a region where the gravitational field is not constant, unless there is sound reasoning explaining these anomalies.
If there are no sensible responses (other than from Skeptimatic or JRoweSkeptic, who I doubt go with UA anyway) I can just assume that the UA should NEVER have been applied, and the FE had better find anoyther explanation for "gravity".
-
Oh, so now it is not OK to make a shitty response! So not only are you a discount engineer, but also a hypocrite.
I can't believe you didn't see that one coming. I set you up and you walked right into it. Idiot.
Holy shit, that was the lamest response you have ever posted. I want to laugh at you, but damn, now I just feel sorry for you.
-
He did say once that they make him watch an oven all day.
Ha! That is exactly what I was envisioning Discount Chemist doing! Discount Chemist's job could be replaced at any time with a standard household timer.
-
Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.
You made a ridiculous statement, which I illustrated with an example, but it's irrelevant? As long as you now realize that your statement was ridiculous, we can move on, until it comes up again.
What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.
A cylinder goes from an open internal volume to a closed container in a step function. As for the rest of this quote, it makes no sense.
How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?
There is a component to the acceleration vector that is normal to the FE and equal to the acceleration of the FE. Otherwise, the FE would eventually have run into the Sun.
To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?
You are assuming that the DE does not provide a self-righting mechanism. Which would be obviously wrong. Otherwise, we would all be dead.
Wait a minute! You are a rocket engineer ... I doubt it with a comment like that. Any self-righting mechanism would apply a torque to everything on your earth model. This would cause vectored accelerations in some very uncomfortable directions for the humans living on your model.
Rocket scientist indeed ... LOL
-
There's still no explanation for differences in said acceleration around the world.
Since the acceleration is smaller as you climb a mountain and as you near the Equator, it means the UA is as stupid as the flat earth.
But hey, let's wait for the wrongineer to come up with another trolling text trying to ignore all that.
As predicted, FE pretenders still can't answer this.
How can the "plane of Earth" accelerate upwards at different rates around the world?
-
There's still no explanation for differences in said acceleration around the world.
Since the acceleration is smaller as you climb a mountain and as you near the Equator, it means the UA is as stupid as the flat earth.
But hey, let's wait for the wrongineer to come up with another trolling text trying to ignore all that.
As predicted, FE pretenders still can't answer this.
How can the "plane of Earth" accelerate upwards at different rates around the world?
Are you still having trouble understanding Special Relativity? Maybe you still think that the Earth would be traveling faster than light speed with its acceleration?
-
Wait a minute! You are a rocket engineer
Correct.
Any self-righting mechanism would apply a torque to everything on your earth model.
Such as?
This would cause vectored accelerations in some very uncomfortable directions for the humans living on your model.
Such as?
Rocket scientist indeed ... LOL
Rocket science is serious business.
-
Oh, so now it is not OK to make a shitty response! So not only are you a discount engineer, but also a hypocrite.
I can't believe you didn't see that one coming. I set you up and you walked right into it. Idiot.
Holy shit, that was the lamest response you have ever posted. I want to laugh at you, but damn, now I just feel sorry for you.
You know it's a copy of your post right?
-
Hence the reason I said it was a lame response. Idiot.
-
Hence the reason I said it was a lame response. Idiot.
Why would you call yourself an idiot?
-
Good Lord. I'm calling your copy of my post lame. My post was brilliant. Your attempt at a come back by copying my post was lame.
Idiot.
-
Good Lord. I'm calling your copy of my post lame. My post was brilliant. Your attempt at a come back by copying my post was lame.
Idiot.
I agree, what I copied was lame.
-
A Universal Accelerator not only would need to add more energy to a closed system (unlike gravity which is not bound by definition to a defined system under its influence), we would feel the force unevenly. Honestly, simple logic rules this out. We can see and interact with gravity.
-
A Universal Accelerator not only would need to add more energy to a closed system (unlike gravity which is not bound by definition to a defined system under its influence), we would feel the force unevenly.
What?
We can see and interact with gravity.
You can see gravity? And interact with a fictitious force? Please tell me more!
-
Good Lord. I'm calling your copy of my post lame. My post was brilliant. Your attempt at a come back by copying my post was lame.
Idiot.
I agree, what I copied was lame.
Really pathetic attempt here Discount Chemist. This still doesn't change the fact that you fell for quite possibly the most obvious trap that has ever been set in the history of traps. And added more evidence that you suck at just about everything. And that you are a hypocrite. And an idiot.
-
The funny thing was I already addressed the problem earlier but as expected, you took it out of my quote.
The very next statement is this very important caveat to the statement prior:
If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.
Normally that would be true, but you and jroa have shown that not to be true in your criticism against me.
-
This still doesn't change the fact that you fell for quite possibly the most obvious trap that has ever been set in the history of traps.
-
Normally people wouldn't be happy to be a coward. You on the other hand, embrace it.
-
There's still no explanation for differences in said acceleration around the world.
Since the acceleration is smaller as you climb a mountain and as you near the Equator, it means the UA is as stupid as the flat earth.
But hey, let's wait for the wrongineer to come up with another trolling text trying to ignore all that.
As predicted, FE pretenders still can't answer this.
How can the "plane of Earth" accelerate upwards at different rates around the world?
Are you still having trouble understanding Special Relativity? Maybe you still think that the Earth would be traveling faster than light speed with its acceleration?
Which part of Special Relativity explains why the acceleration is weaker at the top of the Everest? Can you provide scientific material to back up that stupid claim?
-
Normally people wouldn't be happy to be a coward. You on the other hand, embrace it.
Seriously, you are pathetic. I've heard better come-backs from my 5 year old.
-
There's still no explanation for differences in said acceleration around the world.
Since the acceleration is smaller as you climb a mountain and as you near the Equator, it means the UA is as stupid as the flat earth.
But hey, let's wait for the wrongineer to come up with another trolling text trying to ignore all that.
As predicted, FE pretenders still can't answer this.
How can the "plane of Earth" accelerate upwards at different rates around the world?
Are you still having trouble understanding Special Relativity? Maybe you still think that the Earth would be traveling faster than light speed with its acceleration?
Which part of Special Relativity explains why the acceleration is weaker at the top of the Everest? Can you provide scientific material to back up that stupid claim?
I have tried to drag an explanation for these variations - doesn't work! Easier to get milk from a bull!
-
Normally people wouldn't be happy to be a coward. You on the other hand, embrace it.
Seriously, you are pathetic. I've heard better come-backs from my 5 year old.
You two need to get a room.
-
Normally people wouldn't be happy to be a coward. You on the other hand, embrace it.
Seriously, you are pathetic. I've heard better come-backs from my 5 year old.
Sorry the truth hurts you so much.
-
Normally people wouldn't be happy to be a coward. You on the other hand, embrace it.
Seriously, you are pathetic. I've heard better come-backs from my 5 year old.
You two need to get a room.
I know. He won't take the hint. I've had girlfriends who were less clingy than Discount Chemist. He's worse than a chick.
-
Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.
You made a ridiculous statement, which I illustrated with an example, but it's irrelevant? As long as you now realize that your statement was ridiculous, we can move on, until it comes up again.
Your comparision to RE stuff was a classic fail tactic presented by some people here to avoid direct answer to the question they do not know the answer for. Now I see exactly the same comparision from you. How is that not ridiculous? Are you unable to provide a FE answer?
What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.
A cylinder goes from an open internal volume to a closed container in a step function.
So the shield has clear border where it collapses no nothing? Well, that would not make any sense either. And would contradict measurements of g rate at higher altitudes.
How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?
There is a component to the acceleration vector that is normal to the FE and equal to the acceleration of the FE. Otherwise, the FE would eventually have run into the Sun.
A component? Wait, I do not see any information regarding vector components in your description. Why suddenly chaning your mind/description?
Also this imply that there are objects directly above the Earth that are, again, not affected by UA for all of the time, since their normal COMPONENT is less than 9.8m/s^2. Why? Because some objects revolving above are supposed to change their altitude. But that is the topic for other discussion - the existance of magic force that allows them revolving and changing their altitude.
To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?
You are assuming that the DE does not provide a self-righting mechanism. Which would be obviously wrong. Otherwise, we would all be dead.
Please provide the "self-righting mechanism" description and how it works. And proof of its existance. Otherwise you are spamming with empty claims.
-
How does the UA know the mass of objects? How does it control it's force so objects of different mass accelerate at the same rate?
I don't accept the UA explanation of gravity, if the earth is accelerating upward then, the UA doesn't need to "Control it's force" any more than gravity does
Force = m x a in either case.
UA could be "equivalent" to gravity over a region small enough for "g" to be considered constant. This constancy, however, is demonstrably not true over the whole surface of the earth or above where we can measure "g". So far I have never seen an explanation of how these variations can be accounted for under the UA theory.
-
Your comparision to RE stuff was a classic fail tactic presented by some people here to avoid direct answer to the question they do not know the answer for. Now I see exactly the same comparision from you. How is that not ridiculous? Are you unable to provide a FE answer?
You said you don't like something about the FE because it was convenient. By that same reasoning, you must not like all the things about the RE because they are convenient. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite?
So the shield has clear border where it collapses no nothing? Well, that would not make any sense either. And would contradict measurements of g rate at higher altitudes.
What the hell are you talking about? Can you please keep your argument straight? You said it would have to be like a cylinder, not me.
A component? Wait, I do not see any information regarding vector components in your description.
Then I guess you can't read.
Also this imply that there are objects directly above the Earth that are, again, not affected by UA for all of the time, since their normal COMPONENT is less than 9.8m/s^2. Why? Because some objects revolving above are supposed to change their altitude. But that is the topic for other discussion - the existance of magic force that allows them revolving and changing their altitude.
The Dark Energy Field.
Please provide the "self-righting mechanism" description and how it works. And proof of its existance.
The shape of the FE itself and the interaction with the DEF could be one way to provide this mechanism. Plus, if it didn't, we would not be around to know it.
-
I just wonder why no-one will ever explain this apparent anomaly with the use of UA in lieu of gravitation.
UA could be "equivalent" to gravity over a region small enough for "g" to be considered constant. This constancy, however, is demonstrably not true over the whole surface of the earth or above where we can measure "g".
It is not as though variations in "g" are random. The changes due to latitude and altitude are well known and small changes are used in gravimetric mineral exploration.
Rowbotham's proposition that UA can replace could be excused because these variations were much less known in his time, but there is no longer that excuse. . From what I can see UA is simply no longer acceptable as a gravitation replacement.
So far I have never seen an explanation of how these variations can be accounted for under the UA theory.
-
You said you don't like something about the FE because it was convenient. By that same reasoning, you must not like all the things about the RE because they are convenient. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite?
This part of the conversation is over.
So the shield has clear border where it collapses no nothing? Well, that would not make any sense either. And would contradict measurements of g rate at higher altitudes.
What the hell are you talking about? Can you please keep your argument straight? You said it would have to be like a cylinder, not me.
You lack of imagination is mindblowing.
The shield collapses at certain altitude. If the collapse is uniform around the Earth, the shield forms cylinder. If the shield collapses from full to nothing in a matter of short distance, then we can say we have our step function. If it collapses slowly over long distance to nothing, then we don't. Do you have ANY proof for any case? We can even abandon the cylinder shape for the dome shape. Or any that you like.
A component? Wait, I do not see any information regarding vector components in your description.
Then I guess you can't read.
Please quote the relevant part where you explicitly state anything regarding components.
Also this imply that there are objects directly above the Earth that are, again, not affected by UA for all of the time, since their normal COMPONENT is less than 9.8m/s^2. Why? Because some objects revolving above are supposed to change their altitude. But that is the topic for other discussion - the existance of magic force that allows them revolving and changing their altitude.
The Dark Energy Field.
Any proof or just empty statement?
Please provide the "self-righting mechanism" description and how it works. And proof of its existance.
The shape of the FE itself and the interaction with the DEF could be one way to provide this mechanism. Plus, if it didn't, we would not be around to know it.
So, from what I've just read DEF not only accelerates stuff, bug magically curves the Sun, fixes Earth direction etc.
You have your magic, which is far more complicated that the magic posed in your description.
-
You said you don't like something about the FE because it was convenient. By that same reasoning, you must not like all the things about the RE because they are convenient. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite?
This part of the conversation is over.
Truth hurts, huh?
The shield collapses at certain altitude. If the collapse is uniform around the Earth, the shield forms cylinder. If the shield collapses from full to nothing in a matter of short distance, then we can say we have our step function. If it collapses slowly over long distance to nothing, then we don't.
Right. You said it would have to be a cylinder, not me. I stated no such thing. Stop projecting your argument on me.
Do you have ANY proof for any case? We can even abandon the cylinder shape for the dome shape. Or any that you like.
If there is an atmosphere on the FE, it has to be held in somehow. DEF seems like a pretty good explanation to me.
Please quote the relevant part where you explicitly state anything regarding components.
2. Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1? Yes, go to #3. No, go to #5.
You are welcome.
You have your magic, which is far more complicated that the magic posed in your description.
FE has magic, RE has magic. Does that make us even? Or are you a hypocrite and only don't like FE magic?
-
Which part of Special Relativity explains why the acceleration is weaker at the top of the Everest? Can you provide scientific material to back up that stupid claim?
Relativity says the entire Earth cannot experience the same rate of acceleration because rigid bodies violate the rule that information cannot be transmitted instantaneously or at FTL speeds (see: rigid bodies in relativity (https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q2018.html)). For instance, when a rod is pushed, its rear end will experience a higher rate of acceleration (and thus lesser higher time dilation) than its front. One consequence of this is length contraction. In our case, the top of the Earth moves slightly slower than its bottom.
EDIT: The rear end should experience higher time dilation.
-
In our case, the top of the Earth moves slightly slower than its bottom.
Ah, which explains why the earth tore itself to pieces billions of years ago ::)
-
Ah, which explains why the earth tore itself to pieces billions of years ago ::)
I just stated the reason why that won't be the case.
-
In our case, the top of the Earth moves slightly slower than its bottom.
What? That makes no sense.
-
Which part of Special Relativity explains why the acceleration is weaker at the top of the Everest? Can you provide scientific material to back up that stupid claim?
Relativity says the entire Earth cannot experience the same rate of acceleration because rigid bodies violate the rule that information cannot be transmitted instantaneously or at FTL speeds (see: rigid bodies in relativity (https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q2018.html)). For instance, when a rod is pushed, its rear end will experience a higher rate of acceleration (and thus lesser time dilation) than its front. One consequence of this is length contraction. In our case, the top of the Earth moves slightly slower than its bottom.
Objects under more acceleration,thus having more velocity, will experience more time dilation, not less as you claim.
Someone on youtube did a good video on "The speed of push". It's equal to the speed of sound for a material. Once the whole object is being pushed, it will be at a uniform velocity.
-
Truth hurts, huh?
More like retardness of the discussion you provoked.
The shield collapses at certain altitude. If the collapse is uniform around the Earth, the shield forms cylinder. If the shield collapses from full to nothing in a matter of short distance, then we can say we have our step function. If it collapses slowly over long distance to nothing, then we don't.
Right. You said it would have to be a cylinder, not me. I stated no such thing. Stop projecting your argument on me.
I suggested cylindrical shape based on your description. Why is it so hard for you to clarify or correct me?
Do you have ANY proof for any case? We can even abandon the cylinder shape for the dome shape. Or any that you like.
If there is an atmosphere on the FE, it has to be held in somehow. DEF seems like a pretty good explanation to me.
"Somehow", "seems" - none of these words describe anything related to proof.
Please quote the relevant part where you explicitly state anything regarding components.
2. Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1? Yes, go to #3. No, go to #5.
You are welcome.
Your credibility has just went down to close to zero level.
You have your magic, which is far more complicated that the magic posed in your description.
FE has magic, RE has magic. Does that make us even? Or are you a hypocrite and only don't like FE magic?
What? You are the one calling something from RE a magic. Not me. It is in YOUR DESCRIPTION.
-
Ah, which explains why the earth tore itself to pieces billions of years ago ::)
I just stated the reason why that won't be the case.
No, you didn't.
-
Speed only asymptotically nears the speed of light relative to someone who is stationary, because to them the object moving near the speed of light will take literally forever to reach it because time relative to the stationary observer will pass muchhhh slower on the surface of the object. HOWEVER if you were on the surface of the object and were somehow able to continuously accelerate (which is not possible because as you near light speed you actually decellerate) you would eventually eclipse light speed. In this example, the people on earth are travelling at the same acceleration as Earth, because they're on it, so time would move the same relative to them as it does to Earth and they would theoretically witness the Earth surpass the speed of light. Which blows up your asymptotic equation. Because it only theoretically works as percieved by a stationary third party.
-
Speed only asymptotically nears the speed of light relative to someone who is stationary, because to them the object moving near the speed of light will take literally forever to reach it because time relative to the stationary observer will pass muchhhh slower on the surface of the object. HOWEVER if you were on the surface of the object and were somehow able to continuously accelerate (which is not possible because as you near light speed you actually decellerate) you would eventually eclipse light speed. In this example, the people on earth are travelling at the same acceleration as Earth, because they're on it, so time would move the same relative to them as it does to Earth and they would theoretically witness the Earth surpass the speed of light. Which blows up your asymptotic equation. Because it only theoretically works as percieved by a stationary third party.
Now I don't accept UA, but you have to give it to them that as far as an observer on earth is concerned (and that is all that matters), the earth can continue to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 for ever.
Mind you don't ask where is will end up, maybe it describes a massive circle? Now don't ask me how to constrain an object travelling at (1 - δ)c where δ->0 to keep to a circle. Just kidding around with all this!
-
Now I don't accept UA, but you have to give it to them that as far as an observer on earth is concerned (and that is all that matters), the earth can continue to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 for ever.
Please tell me you were kidding about that part^ because thats absolutely wrong.
-
Now I don't accept UA, but you have to give it to them that as far as an observer on earth is concerned (and that is all that matters), the earth can continue to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 for ever.
Please tell me you were kidding about that part^ because thats absolutely wrong.
No, Rabinoz is right about this one.
-
More like retardness of the discussion you provoked.
So I guess you realize how dumb your statement was, then?
I suggested cylindrical shape based on your description. Why is it so hard for you to clarify or correct me?
My description was nothing of a cylinder. You said it had to be a cylinder. And I corrected you.
"Somehow", "seems" - none of these words describe anything related to proof.
So I assume you also don't accept Dark Energy since it has no proof?
Your credibility has just went down to close to zero level.
Uh, why is that? Because I am right and you can't handle it?
What? You are the one calling something from RE a magic. Not me. It is in YOUR DESCRIPTION.
RE uses magic in order to work. Lots of things are convenient in the RE. But for some reason, you accept these things, when you say you can't accept them on the FE. Seems hypocritical to me.
-
Speed only asymptotically nears the speed of light relative to someone who is stationary
Inertial, not stationary.
because to them the object moving near the speed of light will take literally forever to reach it because time relative to the stationary observer will pass muchhhh slower on the surface of the object.
No, that is not why. It would take forever because it would approach the speed of light asymptotically.
HOWEVER if you were on the surface of the object and were somehow able to continuously accelerate (which is not possible because as you near light speed you actually decellerate) you would eventually eclipse light speed.
Nope. On the FE, you would not notice any change in the acceleration. To an inertial observer, the acceleration would be slowing, but the object accelerating would be none the wiser.
In this example, the people on earth are travelling at the same acceleration as Earth, because they're on it, so time would move the same relative to them as it does to Earth and they would theoretically witness the Earth surpass the speed of light.
Nope. See above.
Which blows up your asymptotic equation.
Nope. See above.
-
In our case, the top of the Earth moves slightly slower than its bottom.
What? That makes no sense.
The reasons for this are that (1) a body rigid in itself is physically impossible, as explained in the article, and that (2) Relativity predicts the Earth will eventually pull itself apart under stress if the two ends of it were to experience the same rate of acceleration (to maintain a constant length between them) while undergoing length contraction with respect to an external inertial observer (or in the frame where it is observed to be moving). Born rigidity addresses this by saying the rear end must experience a higher rate of acceleration than the front. This is so that the Earth’s length, with respect to the inertial observer, contracts as expected (that is, the Earth does not appear "stretched" to the inertial observer by maintaining its initial length forcibly) while the proper length—the length of the Earth measured at rest—between the two ends remains the same in a co-moving frame (that is, the Earth appears to maintain its "rigidity" or structural integrity to an observer co-moving with it, as it would appear stationary).
Objects under more acceleration,thus having more velocity, will experience more time dilation, not less as you claim.
Oops, I made an error there; thanks for pointing it out. Yes, the rear end is supposed to experience higher time dilation due to the higher proper acceleration it experiences. I don't know why I wrote it that way.
-
Youre forgetting that acceleration is not an asymptotic graph. And time relativity only matters if youre not moving at the same speed as the object in question. Same speed=same time. Thats the whole point of einstein's relativity which has been proven. Youve just made up a law of physics that cant be tested to explain gravity.
-
In our case, the top of the Earth moves slightly slower than its bottom.
What? That makes no sense.
The reasons for this are that (1) a body rigid in itself is physically impossible, as explained in the article, and that (2) Relativity predicts the Earth will eventually pull itself apart under stress if the two ends of it were to experience the same rate of acceleration (to maintain a constant length between them) while undergoing length contraction with respect to an external inertial observer (or in the frame where it is observed to be moving). Born rigidity addresses this by saying the rear end must experience a higher rate of acceleration than the front. This is so that the Earth’s length, with respect to the inertial observer, contracts as expected (that is, the Earth does not appear "stretched" to the inertial observer by maintaining its initial length forcibly) while the proper length—the length of the Earth measured at rest—between the two ends remains the same in a co-moving frame (that is, the Earth appears to maintain its "rigidity" or structural integrity to an observer co-moving with it, as it would appear stationary).
Objects under more acceleration,thus having more velocity, will experience more time dilation, not less as you claim.
Oops, I made an error there; thanks for pointing it out. Yes, the rear end is supposed to experience higher time dilation due to the higher proper acceleration it experiences. I don't know why I wrote it that way.
So is the ground of the disk (between the top surface and bottom surface) actually compressing or from an external reference point, only APPEAR to be compressing.
-
So is the ground of the disk (between the top surface and bottom surface) actually compressing or from an external reference point, only APPEAR to be compressing.
Yes, the Earth is length-contracted according to an external inertial observer. A person on Earth will not see this, just as she will not see the Earth approaching c; she will, however, see that she experiences slightly less proper acceleration near the top than the bottom according to her accelerometer. We can't possibly determine whether or not the Earth is under-going length contraction independent of observers, since there's no such thing as an absolute frame.
-
So is the ground of the disk (between the top surface and bottom surface) actually compressing or from an external reference point, only APPEAR to be compressing.
Yes, the Earth is length-contracted according to an external inertial observer. A person on Earth will not see this, just as she will not see the Earth approaching c; she will, however, see that she experiences slightly less proper acceleration near the top than the bottom according to her accelerometer. We can't possibly determine whether or not the Earth is under-going length contraction independent of observers, since there's no such thing as an absolute frame.
So you are saying everything (time, length, velocity) is basically relative to an external observer (apparent). Nothing is actually happening to the things (people, mountains, the ground, etc.) on Earth as they go faster and faster (accelerate)?
-
So is the ground of the disk (between the top surface and bottom surface) actually compressing or from an external reference point, only APPEAR to be compressing.
Yes, the Earth is length-contracted according to an external inertial observer. A person on Earth will not see this, just as she will not see the Earth approaching c; she will, however, see that she experiences slightly less proper acceleration near the top than the bottom according to her accelerometer. We can't possibly determine whether or not the Earth is under-going length contraction independent of observers, since there's no such thing as an absolute frame.
I have no problem with "she will, however, see that she experiences slightly less proper acceleration near the top than the bottom according to her accelerometer. " (I hardly could, I'm certainly no expert on GR, let alone a physicist!).
Nonetheless there seem to be a couple of points that still need an explanation:- There seems to have been no attempt at any correlation with the predicted lower acceleration nearer the top and the observer variation with altitude. At the moment it seems to a could be explanation.
- Also this seems to provide no explanation of the increasing "g" measured as the latitude increases, noted since Newton's and Huygen's time from careful measurements on pendulums and timing weights.
-
Nothing is actually happening to the things (people, mountains, the ground, etc.) on Earth as they go faster and faster (accelerate)?
As I said, they go faster and faster relative to an external inertial observer. Any relativistic phenomenon that arises from the ever-increasing velocity of the Earth (as it approaches c) can only be seen and measured by said observer.
-
So is the ground of the disk (between the top surface and bottom surface) actually compressing or from an external reference point, only APPEAR to be compressing.
Yes, the Earth is length-contracted according to an external inertial observer. A person on Earth will not see this, just as she will not see the Earth approaching c; she will, however, see that she experiences slightly less proper acceleration near the top than the bottom according to her accelerometer.
Although I think your explanation is basically bollocks, I'm still genuinely impressed you made a good stab at it.
The problem is, even if we accept your sophisticated hand-waving about Born Rigidity (the weakest of the Bourne films, if you ask me), it only explains why gravity varies by altitude, and not why it varies from place to place even at sea level.
-
it only explains why gravity varies by altitude, and not why it varies from place to place even at sea level.
I tried this earlier in this thread, the only responses were inane ones like: "Variations in test equipment".
From the little I have read the Einstein's "Equivalence Theory" can only be applied over a region of space and time where "g" is constant.
This is clearly not true for the whole surface area of the earth.
We find that at sea level "g" varies from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles - only about 0.5%, but quite measurable.
Also an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%, neglecting any change in bouancy of the less dense atmosphere. (Admittedly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude), but the I don't believe the figures are much disputed).
So if the UA theory is going to rely on the "Equivalence Theory" for justification, some rational explanation for these variations must be provided. This explanation should show why changes in "g" are detected as a result of massive ore bodies - used in mineral exploration.
And, please don't come up with the "gravitational effects of the sun moon and other celestial bodies" for obvious reasons!
It's probably just me! I don't think little things like facts get in the way of Zetetic "science".
-
So if the UA theory is going to rely on the "Equivalence Theory" for justification, some rational explanation for these variations must be provided. This explanation should show why changes in "g" are detected as a result of massive ore bodies - used in mineral exploration.
It doesn't really matter what the explanation is though. The very fact the g varies at all means that, if the earth is being propelled at relativistic speeds, that it would tear itself apart in nanoseconds.
For UA to work, then the measured acceleration must be exactly the same the planet over. It isn't, and that is why UA is broken out of the box.
-
Using UA/whatever, please explain:
1) Neptune being discovered by the perturbation of Uranus' orbit.
2) Pluto being discovered by the perturbation of Uranus' and Neptune's orbit.
Does UA apply? How?
-
1) Neptune being discovered by the perturbation of Uranus' orbit.
2) Pluto being discovered by the perturbation of Uranus' and Neptune's orbit.
Not really on topic, but I was intrigued a few days ago to read a lot of the detail on the discovery of Neptune, very briefly summarised as:
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/146--When-was-Neptune-discovered- (http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/146--When-was-Neptune-discovered-)
Neptune was the first planet to be discovered by using mathematics. After the discovery of Uranus in 1781, astronomers noticed that the planet was being pulled slightly out of its normal orbit. John Couch Adams of Britain and Urbain Jean Joseph Leverrier of France, used mathematics to predict that the gravity from another planet beyond Uranus was affecting the orbit of Uranus. They figured out not only where the planet was, but also how much mass it had. A young astronomer, Johann Gottfried Galle, decided to search for the predicted planet and observed Neptune for the first time in 1846.
Galle might have been the astromoner that first "found" it, but the prediction was certainly a joint effort!
Then to find that astronomers from Galileo on had sometimes seen and even noted that it moved, yet never twigged that it was a new planet.
I don't think UA would have helped at all!
-
I have made a number of posts on this thread claiming that the Equivalence Principle cannot be used to justify the UA. This is based on the well accepted variation of "g"[nb]"g" is used as the effective acceleration due to gravity. [/nb] over the surface of the earth.
One such post was: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1744289#msg1744289] [url]http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1744289#msg1744289 (http://[url)[/url].
I would claim, however, that EP or not, Universal Acceleration is simply not a valid mechanism for the observed effects of variations in effective "g" observed on the earth's surface, simply because it is claimed to be "Universal".
In the case of the earth we can readily measure these variations in the "g". These are due to predominately to latitude and altitude, but there are more subtle variations due to the presence of ore bodies as used in gravimetric surveys for minerals.
Since the measured "g" clearly varies over the earth's surface , the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the "g" [/b] and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "g".
Undoubtedly someone will say Einstein "disproved gravity" and replaced it with the curvature of space-time. While this is undoubtedly correct it does nothing to justify Universal Acceleration being the mechanism behind the observed non-uniform "g".
-
UA in the FE world is, as I understand it, acting upon the Earth itself but not upon things on the Earth. This is why you don't stay at whatever height you jump to but the Earth catches up to you.
Two things would seem to negate this.
1. When you jump, you add additional speed to your body from the jump so you are initially going faster than the Earth. In that case, the Earth should not catch up as quickly as it does. It should be much more slowly because your speed does not immediately cease when you jump.
2. Since there is no Gravity on a FE world, then the only weights are when the Earth pushes up against an object. So if removed from the Earth nothing would be lighter or heavier than anything else. A helium balloon floats skyward, but since UA does not act upon anything on the Earth and there is no Gravity, it can not be said to be lighter than anything so should not act as it does.
-
UA in the FE world is, as I understand it, acting upon the Earth itself but not upon things on the Earth. This is why you don't stay at whatever height you jump to but the Earth catches up to you.
Two things would seem to negate this.
1. When you jump, you add additional speed to your body from the jump so you are initially going faster than the Earth. In that case, the Earth should not catch up as quickly as it does. It should be much more slowly because your speed does not immediately cease when you jump.
The same is true in the gravity case. Your velocity relative to the Earth changes at a rate of 9.8 m/s2. This is what happens in the UA case as well.
2. Since there is no Gravity on a FE world, then the only weights are when the Earth pushes up against an object. So if removed from the Earth nothing would be lighter or heavier than anything else. A helium balloon floats skyward, but since UA does not act upon anything on the Earth and there is no Gravity, it can not be said to be lighter than anything so should not act as it does.
You are mistaking mass with weight. Helium is not lighter than air because of gravity but because of effects related to their mass and density.
-
I'm confused - if the UA is accelerating our FE at 9.8 mt/sec/sec, then it would take T seconds to hit light speed
9.8 Mmt/sec/sec x T sec = 299792458 M/sec (speed of light)
T = 299792458/9.8/60/60/24/365 = .97 years to reach the speed of light
What is the FE definition of a year?
We should be way into hyperspace by now .... or is the dome pushing back and slowing us down?
I wonder if there is dark matter out there pushing back on us?
Can anyone help? Thanks
-
You need to take Relativity into account. You are talking relativistic velocities, so you can't use Newtonian mechanics.
It would take an infinite amount of time for the FE, accelerating at a constant rate, to reach the speed of light. From an inertial observer's point of view, the FE's acceleration would be decreasing, but those on the FE would only experience a constant acceleration.
-
I wonder how old is the FE? Presumably we have been accelerating all this time - so how fast are we actually going? And I don't understand the infinite time argument? We must be going some velocity less than C? But what is the force that is reducing our acceleration?
-
I'm confused - if the UA is accelerating our FE at 9.8 mt/sec/sec, then it would take T seconds to hit light speed
9.8 Mmt/sec/sec x T sec = 299792458 M/sec (speed of light)
T = 299792458/9.8/60/60/24/365 = .97 years to reach the speed of light
What is the FE definition of a year?
We should be way into hyperspace by now .... or is the dome pushing back and slowing us down?
I wonder if there is dark matter out there pushing back on us?
Can anyone help? Thanks
No, we aren't in hyperspace, nor need "the dome pushing back", and have no need of dark matter, maybe a bit of "dark energy".
Basically relativity won't let it. I will let someone far more competent than I go into this more fully, but to a non-accelerating observer your mass will appear to increase and your acceleration slow down so that the speed of light is approached asymptotically.
So, while in the accelerating "flat earth" the inhabitants still experience the same acceleration, the velocity never reaches speed of light (relative to any observer).
Mind you I think UA is "flat wrong", but that's another story.
-
I wonder how old is the FE?
4.5 billion years, give or take.
Presumably we have been accelerating all this time - so how fast are we actually going?
Less than c.
And I don't understand the infinite time argument?
According to the equations of Special Relativity, it would take an infinite amount of time to accelerate to the speed of light.
But what is the force that is reducing our acceleration?
There is no force. As a consequence of the above mentioned equations, the FE would approach the speed of light asymptotically, requiring an infinite amount of time to reach it. To those on the FE, they would not notice anything different. But to an inertial frame of reference, it would appear that the FE's rate of accelerating was decreasing.
-
I'm confused - if the UA is accelerating our FE at 9.8 mt/sec/sec, then it would take T seconds to hit light speed
9.8 Mmt/sec/sec x T sec = 299792458 M/sec (speed of light)
T = 299792458/9.8/60/60/24/365 = .97 years to reach the speed of light
What is the FE definition of a year?
We should be way into hyperspace by now .... or is the dome pushing back and slowing us down?
I wonder if there is dark matter out there pushing back on us?
Can anyone help? Thanks
No, we aren't in hyperspace, nor need "the dome pushing back", and have no need of dark matter, maybe a bit of "dark energy".
Basically relativity won't let it. I will let someone far more competent than I go into this more fully, but to a non-accelerating observer your mass will appear to increase and your acceleration slow down so that the speed of light is approached asymptotically.
So, while in the accelerating "flat earth" the inhabitants still experience the same acceleration, the velocity never reaches speed of light (relative to any observer).
Mind you I think UA is "flat wrong", but that's another story.
rabinoz finally has said something halfway intelligent. I think someone is starting to do some research. :D
-
You need to take Relativity into account. You are talking relativistic velocities, so you can't use Newtonian mechanics.
It would take an infinite amount of time for the FE, accelerating at a constant rate, to reach the speed of light. From an inertial observer's point of view, the FE's acceleration would be decreasing, but those on the FE would only experience a constant acceleration.
,
As objects above the disk are not influenced by UA, if I was to jump out of a plane at high altitude I would become an inertial observer, waiting for the disk to catch me up (FE equivalent to gravity).In my frame it would be traveling faster than C in my frame of reference FE would be suddenly hit me before I had seen it coming. Skydivers dont die from splatting the ground before it was due so this is not occurring. UA is wrong
-
As objects above the disk are not influenced by UA, if I was to jump out of a plane at high altitude I would become an inertial observer, waiting for the disk to catch me up (FE equivalent to gravity).In my frame it would be traveling faster than C
Ha, ha, ha, ha, lol. Inertial does not mean stopped, Mr. Special Relativity. Plus, if you knew anything about the Equivalence Principle (the basis for General Relativity) you would know your example is wrong. I guess you should get back to studying. You apparently need it.
-
Mind you I think UA is "flat wrong", but that's another story.
rabinoz finally has said something halfway intelligent. I think someone is starting to do some research. :D
If I believe someone misrepresents your "theories", I will try to correct it.
But, on quite a few occasions I have argued that UA is quite inapplicable as a replacement for "gravity". Why are those posts in general ignored?
Now what about acknowledging the numerous times I shot down UA!
-
As objects above the disk are not influenced by UA, if I was to jump out of a plane at high altitude I would become an inertial observer, waiting for the disk to catch me up (FE equivalent to gravity).In my frame it would be traveling faster than C
Ha, ha, ha, ha, lol. Inertial does not mean stopped, Mr. Special Relativity. Plus, if you knew anything about the Equivalence Principle (the basis for General Relativity) you would know your example is wrong. I guess you should get back to studying. You apparently need it.
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped. However that frame can be measured in x,y,z, and is not undergoing acceleration, therefor qualifies. Whats more it differs from the accelerating frame that is the; UA accelerated FE disk and everything else that is accelerated along with it.
Secondly, I should have no use for Equivalence principal in a FE environment, but just in case;
1. The strong equivalence principle suggests the laws of gravitation (of which there is none to be considered anyway on a FE model) are independent of velocity and location.
2. The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its constitution. (as no gravity is present on FE, we can ignore that gravitational motion too.)
3. The outcome of any local experiment, in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory (In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.) If the observer had any velocity in x or z dimensions, the results would not show variation. No acceleration is occurring along Y, due to UA not affecting things above the disk).
All these things are satisfied. With what I have put forward; I am happy that my "UA is wrong claim" stands.
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
I see your "Ha, ha, ha, ha, lol. bla bla bla, Mr. Special Relativity" and think to myself, "How can i take this idiot seriously when he wants to use maths that have G (gravity) in them to describe a world where there is none existent on a FE model" same with Newtonian laws.... Go get your own theories and stop vandalizing ours. Samuel Rowbotham's work might be a good start, did he have any accepted theories?
How can a concept dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass be used to calculate anything,when FE gravity dose not exist?
As you are aware, I have put forward some Questions to you in another thread, we can get as detailed as you like and prove one way or the other if UA works according to special relativity.
Here it is again to remind you....
;D I'm glad you are up for this, I was disappointed when I thought you had cowardly declined to respond.
Please, without dodging or neglecting to any part of these questions, answer them fully complete with necessary equations or alternate explanations.
You claim that Universal Acceleration Is constantly accelerating everything in the known universe along y at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, with exception of objects directly above the FE disk. This means that we have 2 frames of reference that it is possible to observe as a human on FE.
1. a non-inertial reference frame that is the universe, including FE undergoing upward acceleration at 9.8m/s^2.
If I am firmly on the ground on FE, this would be my frame of reference.
(t1′,x1′,y1′,z1′) ( t2'x2'y2'z2')
2. a inertial frame that would be an observer above the disk that the disk has not yet hit. (This makes a downward force the replaces G possible) This would be an observer in a state of (what on a globe, we refer to as) free fall, but on FE is just awaiting the disk to accelerate toward them. (t,x,y,z)
None of these frames are rotating frames of reference, and all of these frames are determined to be Euclidean, and effectively free from obvious gravitational fields. (as no gravity exists on FE)
Are you happy that these 2 FOR exist?
My first few questions are aimed at determining a few perimeters we can base our equations off later.
When do you propose that acceleration started? (Nearest 100 millennium is fine, If you cannot answer we shall use 500 million years for simplicity.)
What is the currant velocity of FE if the above is true? (nearest whole round number in the nearest millennium is fine)
The globe Earth has an estimated mass of 5.97 × 10^24 kg, What Is the estimated mass of FE?
Ps. I think you may have a faulty monitor or something as you cannot seem to read the above quote in the other tread.
-
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol. Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.
As you are aware, I have put forward some Questions to you in another thread, we can get as detailed as you like and prove one way or the other if UA works according to special relativity.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false? That one? 'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.
-
::)
My quotes in context.
1. The strong equivalence principle suggests the laws of gravitation (of which there is none to be considered anyway on a FE model) are independent of velocity and location.
2. The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its constitution. (as no gravity is present on FE, we can ignore that gravitational motion too.)
3. The outcome of any local experiment, in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory (In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.) If the observer had any velocity in x or z dimensions, the results would not show variation. No acceleration is occurring along Y, due to UA not affecting things above the disk).
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol. Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.
As you are aware, I have put forward some Questions to you in another thread, we can get as detailed as you like and prove one way or the other if UA works according to special relativity.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false? That one? 'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.
Debate over. You have proved yourself unfit/unwilling to answer, and lacking in knowledge. I gave you a good chance to prove UA, but you can't. I am not wasting any more of my time on your trolling and derailing. Mr. fraud. :-*
-
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol. Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.
As you are aware, I have put forward some Questions to you in another thread, we can get as detailed as you like and prove one way or the other if UA works according to special relativity.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false? That one? 'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.
Debate over, You have proved yourself unfit/unwilling to answer, and lacking in knowledge. I am not wasting any more of my time on your trolling and derailing. Mr. fraud.
Typical. You can't stand by your own statements, so you run away. Isn't that the cowardly thing to do? That thing you accused me of?
Oh, and I am not the one lacking in knowledge, Mr. Special Relativity. You are wrong. I am right. I would love to continue with this debate on Relativity, as it's one of my favorite subjects. I would even be more than willing to help you see the light (pun intended).
Maybe next time, don't get all uppity and claim to be so well educated that you are going to destroy someone's argument and call them a coward if they don't respond within seconds of you expecting them to. That is a tact that uneducated RE'ers often use on this site. It doesn't go well for them, as it has not gone well for you.
-
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol. Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.
As you are aware, I have put forward some Questions to you in another thread, we can get as detailed as you like and prove one way or the other if UA works according to special relativity.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false? That one? 'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.
Debate over, You have proved yourself unfit/unwilling to answer, and lacking in knowledge. I am not wasting any more of my time on your trolling and derailing. Mr. fraud.
Typical. You can't stand by your own statements, so you run away. Isn't that the cowardly thing to do? That thing you accused me of?
Oh, and I am not the one lacking in knowledge, Mr. Special Relativity. You are wrong. I am right. I would love to continue with this debate on Relativity, as it's one of my favorite subjects. I would even be more than willing to help you see the light (pun intended).
Maybe next time, don't get all uppity and claim to be so well educated that you are going to destroy someone's argument and call them a coward if they don't respond within seconds of you expecting them to. That is a tact that uneducated RE'ers often use on this site. It doesn't go well for them, as it has not gone well for you.
No, he's right, you've played an avoidance game, and badly at that.
-
What did I avoid?
-
What did I avoid?
Reply #243
-
I guess you didn't read reply #244? The very next one.
-
I guess you didn't read reply #244? The very next one.
Keep guessing.
-
Ok. You can't read.
-
Ok. You can't read.
Nailed it; I clearly can't read.
-
Glad we got that cleared up. ::)
-
Ok. You can't read.
Nailed it; I clearly can't read.
You clearly haven't "nailed" TheEngineer yet?
He never says anything, but he says it with perfect accuracy!
Slight exaggeration, I have seen a couple of things he did say!
-
Ok. You can't read.
Nailed it; I clearly can't read.
You clearly haven't "nailed" TheEngineer yet?
He never says anything, but he says it with perfect accuracy!
Slight exaggeration, I have seen a couple of things he did say!
Please make meaningful contributions when you post in the upper forum. Thanks.
-
You clearly haven't "nailed" TheEngineer yet?
He never says anything, but he says it with perfect accuracy!
Slight exaggeration, I have seen a couple of things he did say!
Please make meaningful contributions when you post in the upper forum. Thanks.
Sorry, I will rectify that.
The Universal Accelerator is not a valid substitute for gravity, as it provides a Uniform Acceleration over the whole of the earth's surface and the observed acceleration is not uniform.
Much more detail can be found in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65228.msg1751651#msg1751651 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65228.msg1751651#msg1751651).
Put simply the measured effective acceleration that is normally ascribed to gravity varies with latitude, altitude [nb]Jack has indicated that the variation with altitude might be due to relativistic effects, but has made no attempt to justify this by correlating the predicted change in apparent acceleration with measured values.[/nb] and to a smaller extent the proximity to massive ore bodies.
To me, unless there is some proven mechanism explaining these variations, UA cannot be a valid substitute for gravity.