The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Nord on November 13, 2009, 08:02:04 PM
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YSqLW7GIhG4/SCpikSa1-rI/AAAAAAAABqM/6_0T4F7iS7Q/s400/Antipodes.JPG)
Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?
Now imagine this is a map of earth:
(http://www.kataragama.org/research/antichthones400.jpg)
doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YSqLW7GIhG4/SCpikSa1-rI/AAAAAAAABqM/6_0T4F7iS7Q/s400/Antipodes.JPG)
Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?
Now imagine this is a map of earth:
(http://www.kataragama.org/research/antichthones400.jpg)
doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.
You fail.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/6/5/b65000f8f887a68545ce63eb1cada232.png)
I know other flat earthers will disagree, but at least you guys manage to construct something plausible to refute this. And yes, I know this ignores relativity.
-
That's the "biggest evidence"?
-
Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.
-
Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.
I know, but unlike the FAQ, which actually offers an explanation for why that could be the case, Nord fails to offer any refutation for it.
And he was arguing from the Round Earth standpoint, saying that if the Earth were round, we'd fall off, forgetting that a Round Earth explains this with Gravity.
-
And he was arguing from the Round Earth standpoint, saying that if the Earth were round, we'd fall off, forgetting that a Round Earth explains this with Gravity.
Gravity/gravitation acts towards the center of mass of the object (in this case, the round earth). This is why people don't fall off of the 'bottom' of the RE.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YSqLW7GIhG4/SCpikSa1-rI/AAAAAAAABqM/6_0T4F7iS7Q/s400/Antipodes.JPG)
Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?
Now imagine this is a map of earth:
(http://www.kataragama.org/research/antichthones400.jpg)
doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.
As I said, please stop associating with us. Their hypotheses may be false upon closer inspection but they at least offer some explanation for observed phenomena.
"Points" like yours don't prove anything apart from the fact that you're thoroughly ignorant of RET which doesn't help anybody, and that you're just the inverse of every other moron who signs up to post nonsense here.
-
I understand that Nord might need to brush up on the concept of gravitation, but I think hostility toward new members is unnecessary. This site is a place for free-thinkers, so he has the right to post whatever he wants as long as it does not violate the rules.
-
Actually, Nord is correct. There's no explanation for why gravity exists. It "just does".
An old equation from the 1600's isn't an explanation for what causes it.
Most people, and even many scientists, would say something stupid like "mass causes it" without explaining how mass would cause it.
But what about photons? They don't have any mass and they still have "gravity".
So what causes gravity?
-
Actually, Nord is correct. There's no explanation for why gravity exists. it "just does".
There is no explanation for why the UA exists either. It "just does".
I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?
-
Actually, Nord is correct. There's no explanation for why gravity exists. it "just does".
Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.
Alternatively...
Why is there a bull in this field?
Because there is! Now get out quick!
Until I see evidence to explain why there is a bull in this field I refuse to believe there is a bull in this field.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YSqLW7GIhG4/SCpikSa1-rI/AAAAAAAABqM/6_0T4F7iS7Q/s400/Antipodes.JPG)
Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?
Now imagine this is a map of earth:
(http://www.kataragama.org/research/antichthones400.jpg)
doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.
Am I the only one who thinks Nord is a satirical FER/Creationist alt?
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YSqLW7GIhG4/SCpikSa1-rI/AAAAAAAABqM/6_0T4F7iS7Q/s400/Antipodes.JPG)
Imagine you are on the bottom of this or at the side. Why arn't you falling off?
Now imagine this is a map of earth:
(http://www.kataragama.org/research/antichthones400.jpg)
doesn't this make more sense? because you can't fall off when you are on side of earth.
I love how both models are spherical. :)
-
There is no explanation for why the UA exists either. It "just does".
I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?
A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.
It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).
A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.
With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.
-
Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.
I've stepped off my chair and seen the earth rise up towards me.
Where have you seen gravitons?
-
Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.
I've stepped off my chair and seen the earth rise up towards me.
Where have you seen gravitons?
The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.
-
Nor is it necessary for there to be an explanation for why it exists. One need simply prove that it exists.
I've stepped off my chair and seen the earth rise up towards me.
Where have you seen gravitons?
The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.
I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.
Where are they?
-
I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.
Where are they?
I'm sorry. I still see the earth pulling me down. I don't see a UA pushing the earth up.
Where is it?
:P
-
I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.
Where are they?
You still don't get it.
The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.
-
There is no explanation for why the UA exists either. It "just does".
I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?
A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.
Why would you say that?
It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).
Your misunderstanding of relativity is not our problem.
A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.
And what is this perpetual source of energy again? Oh, and Newton said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. What is this perpetual source of energy reacting with that is opposite to its action of pushing the FE?
With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.
And your theory of a perpetual energy source that pushes the FE while keeping the sun, moon and other celestial objects at a more or less constant distance above the FE makes any more sense?
-
THis evidence only measures a .03╔╩╦. Which is not very big for evidence on my patented evidence scale.
-
I'm sorry. I still see the earth rise upwards to me. I don't see any gravitons.
Where are they?
You still don't get it.
The graviton is an explanation to why gravity exists. It is not necessary to prove that gravity exists.
Why make stuff up, or even consider the possibility, if there is no evidence what-so-ever?
When I walk off a chair can already see that the earth rises up towards me.
-
Why make stuff up, or even consider the possibility, if there is no evidence what-so-ever?
Because, having all agreed that gravity exists in the way that it does, scientists have now moved on to asking why it exists.
-
Because, having all agreed that gravity exists in the way that it does,
Which way does it exist?
- Force?
- Puller Particles?
- Bends in the Aether (Bending Space)?
"Having all agreed," right?
-
Which way does it exist?
The attraction between matter.
-
Which way does it exist?
The attraction between matter.
Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.
So matter can't have anything to do with it!
-
Which way does it exist?
The attraction between matter.
Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.
So matter can't have anything to do with it!
Photons have energy. Energy = mass.
-
Which way does it exist?
The attraction between matter.
Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.
So matter can't have anything to do with it!
Photons have energy. Energy = mass.
So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?
How does it do that again?
-
So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?
How does it do that again?
Here is one possible explanation: http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm
-
So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?
How does it do that again?
It doesn't matter how. The fact is it does.
-
So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?
How does it do that again?
It doesn't matter how. The fact is it does.
First it's matter,
now it's energy,
sometimes gravity is a bend in the aether,
other times it's a Newtonian force,
and other times gravity is a sub-atomic puller particles,
seems that you guys haven't the faintest idea or piece of evidence for your "gravity".
At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.
-
In order for you to "see" as you say, you would have to be to the side of the accelerating earth. Since space travel is impossible for you in your little world, you cant possibly see it.
-
In order for you to "see" as you say, you would have to be to the side of the accelerating earth. Since space travel is impossible for you in your little world, you cant possibly see it.
The accelerating earth can be seen.
Just walk off the edge of your chair and observe the surface of the earth carefully.
-
seems that you guys haven't the faintest piece of evidence for your "gravity".
At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.
Directly, huh. How so?
How can a universal constant be inconsistent? It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force. It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me. It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it. It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.
-
Directly, huh. How so?
Yep. Just walk off the edge of your chair and look down.
-
Which way does it exist?
The attraction between matter.
Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.
So matter can't have anything to do with it!
Maybe you should take a look at the Einstein field equations before trying to refute them. Even pressure has a gravitational pull. It is hypothetically possible for gravity to be repulsive if you have pure negative pressure.
Also, even if gravity only worked on massive objects, it would still work on light. Light doesn't have a rest mass. It still has mass due to its flight. Photons have been observed to turn into massive antiparticle-particle pairs while in flight.
-
Directly, huh. How so?
Yep. Just walk off the edge of your chair and look down.
Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.
In addition:
How can a universal constant be inconsistent? It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force. It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me. It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it. It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.
-
Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.
Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.
There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.
-
Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.
Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.
There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.
I flagged this post to the moderators then you edit it. =/
Anyways, there is no indication that anything is pushing the Earth into me. Not to mention, who said anything about us being pushed down?
-
Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.
Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.
There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.
Nothing pushing me down. Pulling, yes, in fact in an equally discernable way as to what you are describing.
Tom,
How can a universal constant be inconsistent? It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force. It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me. It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it. It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.
-
I truly think Bishop is one of the most annoying debaters on this forum. His tactic is ignorance and repetition.
By the way, our theories make sense. We have formulas down for everything and everthing is connected.
You have a magic flying disc that accelerates only certain things that touch it, giant ellipsoidal perfect space mirrors, and bending light, turning to this unknown constant you call "up". Things are just like, "it was always like that" and have no underlying cause. With bendy light, by the way, farther away things would be terribly distorted and the horizon would NOT obscure the far away things, because the horizon would appear lower too! Ever thought of that?
And plus, can you tell me the formula for finding the difference in angle and position after a photon of angle theta has travelled for one second? NO, you can't! You just think it bends upwards some random amount! Get realistic! Either make up a new random theory that appears to explain why everything behaves like a round Earth with no underlying logic whatsoever, or the Flat Earth Society will become the Denial Society. Maybe it already is.
-
^They'll just say, 'Work in progress.'
-
Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.
Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.
There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.
The equivalence principle says otherwise.
-
^They'll just say, 'Work in progress.'
So true!
-
So, Tom, now that bendy light doesn't work anymore, what's your new argument? ;D
-
Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.
There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.
This still is not a direct obsevation of the earth moving upward. It is an observation of the results of the earth moving upward, which also happens to be what the result of gravity would be as well.
First it's matter,
now it's energy,
sometimes gravity is a bend in the aether,
other times it's a Newtonian force,
and other times gravity is a sub-atomic puller particles,
seems that you guys haven't the faintest idea or piece of evidence for your "gravity".
At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.
Here, you gave 2 examples of how gravity could work, and tried to make it look like there were more than that.
It was explained up thread that as far as gravity is concerned, matter and energy are interchangable. it's not sometimes one, sometimes the other, it's always both.
Newton, as far as I know, never described the mechanics that caused gravity, he only recognised it was there.
so you are left with gravity either being a bend in the aether caused by matter and energy, or sub atomic puller particles caused by matter and energy.
not as convoluted as you try to make it sound.
how many explainations are there for why the earth is accellerating upward at a constant rate?
-
Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.
There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.
This still is not a direct obsevation of the earth moving upward. It is an observation of the results of the earth moving upward, which also happens to be what the result of gravity would be as well.
First it's matter,
now it's energy,
sometimes gravity is a bend in the aether,
other times it's a Newtonian force,
and other times gravity is a sub-atomic puller particles,
seems that you guys haven't the faintest idea or piece of evidence for your "gravity".
At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.
Here, you gave 2 examples of how gravity could work, and tried to make it look like there were more than that.
It was explained up thread that as far as gravity is concerned, matter and energy are interchangable. it's not sometimes one, sometimes the other, it's always both.
Newton, as far as I know, never described the mechanics that caused gravity, he only recognised it was there.
so you are left with gravity either being a bend in the aether caused by matter and energy, or sub atomic puller particles caused by matter and energy.
not as convoluted as you try to make it sound.
how many explainations are there for why the earth is accellerating upward at a constant rate?
You really don't thinks that's convoluted? How does the aether bend? Why does this attract other things? What are these particles? Why can't we detect their existence in any other way than simply the fact that stuff falls when you drop it?
-
We can't detect them now, but scientists are genuinely looking. That is why the $8,000,000 LHC was built and is looking for the Higgs boson and gravitons. See, we are trying to find the answer, its just really difficult (otherwise this debate would not be happening).
The same could be said about electrons before people came up with CRT's and other equipment. You can't see them, but your cell phone still works.
-
So work in progress? Electrons are an entirely different matter, as their effects can be seen and proven experimentally.
-
Huh, sort of like how gravity can be seen.
Guess it's not magic then.
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
-
So work in progress? Electrons are an entirely different matter, as their effects can be seen and proven experimentally.
The effects of gravity (a close approximation of gravitation) can be seen. The theory makes predictions that we can test, like dropping things in vacuum and launching satellites (regardless of whether you believe this is happening). The theory makes predictions about the motion of the planets and stars, which can be tested. Of course the theory doesn't prove that the stars are moving in a certain way, but its predictions can be tested and are very accurate.
And yes, electrons are an entirely different matter, but only because they happen to be easier to test. The electrical currents and magnetic fields could be predicted long before electrons could be proven to exist (in some form or another). Besides, we are still in the process of understanding electrons. If wave/particle duality doesn't confuse you then you don't underst
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
And the observable driver of that accleration is?
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
Your earlier post says that acceleration is an equally valid explanation for gravity, but in both cases all we can observe is acceleration. The only difference between the theories (as far as this particular discussion is concerned) is the source. That leaves UA and gravitons/bending space on a similar footing as far as what can be directly observed (at least until the LHC gets more evidence).
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
The advantage of gravity is that it can be used to explain many different phenomena that are observed in the cosmos as well as why we stick to the earth. Whereas the comedy accelerator can only explain why we stick to the earth. I'm not saying that makes it more likely, but statistically in the history of science, situations where one theory explains several phenomena rather than having seperate theories for each different observance, have been the ones eventually proved correct.
Gravity not only explains why we would stick to a round earth but also has the advantage of explaining WHY the earth is round. I don't think there is a theory that explains why a flat earth is flat, is there?
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
And the observable driver of that accleration is?
The UA.
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
Your earlier post says that acceleration is an equally valid explanation for gravity, but in both cases all we can observe is acceleration. The only difference between the theories (as far as this particular discussion is concerned) is the source. That leaves UA and gravitons/bending space on a similar footing as far as what can be directly observed (at least until the LHC gets more evidence).
Actually, acceleration is a phenomenon which can be seen elsewhere. Accelerate in a car and bam, the effect is also seen. Everything getting magically sucked together is not a phenomenon we see other than that we and the ground seem to like each other.
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
The advantage of gravity is that it can be used to explain many different phenomena that are observed in the cosmos as well as why we stick to the earth. Whereas the comedy accelerator can only explain why we stick to the earth. I'm not saying that makes it more likely, but statistically in the history of science, situations where one theory explains several phenomena rather than having seperate theories for each different observance, have been the ones eventually proved correct.
Gravity not only explains why we would stick to a round earth but also has the advantage of explaining WHY the earth is round. I don't think there is a theory that explains why a flat earth is flat, is there?
And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.
-
And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.
No, because "Hand of God" is not testable, replicable or predictable, which proper scientific theories are. Gravity is entirely testable, replicable and predictable. Its predictions work for all matter that we see everywhere, on earth or for celestial objects. The same can not be said for the comedy accelerator, which picks and chooses what it affects according to no discernable guidelines.
-
Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.
Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.
Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.
And the observable driver of that accleration is?
The UA.
In what way?
-
And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.
No, because "Hand of God" is not testable, replicable or predictable, which proper scientific theories are. Gravity is entirely testable, replicable and predictable. Its predictions work for all matter that we see everywhere, on earth or for celestial objects. The same can not be said for the comedy accelerator, which picks and chooses what it affects according to no discernable guidelines.
I've tried to get that out of Bishop, but he clammed up.
How can a universal constant be inconsistent? It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force. It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me. It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it. It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.
-
And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.
No, because "Hand of God" is not testable, replicable or predictable, which proper scientific theories are. Gravity is entirely testable, replicable and predictable. Its predictions work for all matter that we see everywhere, on earth or for celestial objects. The same can not be said for the comedy accelerator, which picks and chooses what it affects according to no discernable guidelines.
I've tried to get that out of Bishop, but he clammed up.
How can a universal constant be inconsistent? It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force. It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me. It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it. It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.
Who said that the UA was an omnipresent magic like gravity?
-
Who said that the UA was an omnipresent magic like gravity?
How ironic that it came from this thread too.
Regarding the question:
I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?
A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.
It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).
A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.
With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.
-
Who said that the UA was an omnipresent magic like gravity?
How ironic that it came from this thread too.
Regarding the question:
I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?
A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.
It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).
A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.
With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.
Wait, I have to agree with Tom?
-
Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.
I can't even begin to fathom how wrong that is.
Ok, pick something up. Anything. Now let go. See how it moves downward at an increasing speed? That's called gravity.
-
Wait, I have to agree with Tom?
You do if you want to graduate from his accredited FE college.
-
Wait, I have to agree with Tom?
You do if you want to graduate from his accredited FE college.
I could just give him some money.
-
Wait, I have to agree with Tom?
You do if you want to graduate from his accredited FE college.
I could just give him some money.
He claims that it's not a diploma mill, so you're at least going to have score in the 80th percentile or better on the GRE before he can grant you a diploma.
-
The GRE isn't necessary for a Bachelor's, unless that's been changed. I just want a BZS to start with.
*And I can agree with:
A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.
*
-
Gravity is not exactly hypothetical puller particles, it's the force of attraction between mass, (although we may see the particles of attraction sometime with the LHC) and your form of gravitation is as inconsistent as it gets...
-
Gravity is not exactly hypothetical puller particles, it's the force of attraction between mass, (although we may see the particles of attraction sometime with the LHC) and your form of gravitation is as inconsistent as it gets...
So in spherical earth theory, gravity is a force?
-
Yes, as far as I know.
-
The GRE isn't necessary for a Bachelor's, unless that's been changed. I just want a BZS to start with.
Actually, the GRE is an entrance exam for admission to grad school, roughly equivalent to the SAT. Apparently, high percentile scores can be used to obtain waivers for a number of credit hours towards a bachelors degree from some schools.
-
The GRE isn't necessary for a Bachelor's, unless that's been changed. I just want a BZS to start with.
Actually, the GRE is an entrance exam for admission to grad school, roughly equivalent to the SAT. Apparently, high percentile scores can be used to obtain waivers for a number of credit hours towards a bachelors degree from some schools.
More like the GRE can be used to acquire an entire degree.
-
More like the GRE can be used to acquire an entire degree.
That would depend on the degree.
The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is generally the standard admissions test for students seeking admission to graduate school. However, the GRE is sometimes also used to assess student's learning at the undergraduate level. There are two types of GRE examinations: general testing and subject (discipline) specific. Credit for these exams can go up to 30 credits. These tests score undergraduate achievement in eight disciplines.
-
Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.
I can't even begin to fathom how wrong that is.
Ok, pick something up. Anything. Now let go. See how it moves downward at an increasing speed? That's called gravity.
While you are right in the sense that newton's law of gravitation is more or less true, your proof falls short(though there is plenty of proof out there that doesn't). the best way I can explain this is with Einstein's thought experiment. lets say you are in a room with no windows and no doors. you stand on the floor without floating off. are you experiencing the effects of earth's gravity, or are you on a rocket that is accelerating. in this senario, you can't prove either.
this is why your proof is insufficient, and why the chair experiment is the same.
It is also a great metaphor for FEers living in a room with no windows refusing to look outside of it and see that there is proof of gravity outside that room.
-
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but umm... Christopher Columbus disregarded that the Earth is flat some 500 years ago, so unless you people want to be under power of some fat ass king and be forced to pray 6 hours a day, you can't say the Earth is flat.
-
The greeks proved the earth was round long before columbus' failure to circumnavigate the globe. with all the evidence out there of a spherical earth why would you pick finding another continent?
-
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but umm... Christopher Columbus disregarded that the Earth is flat some 500 years ago, so unless you people want to be under power of some fat ass king and be forced to pray 6 hours a day, you can't say the Earth is flat.
And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it was already well known that the earth was round in the time of Columbus. However, Columbus did not agree with the accepted circumference of the RE (witch was pretty close to Eratosthenes's figure). Not knowing about the Americas, Columbus arbitrarily shortened the distance by several thousand miles in order to make the trip easier to sell to the Queen.
Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[10] In fact, the primitive maritime navigation of the time relied on the stars and the curvature of the spherical Earth. The knowledge that the Earth was spherical was widespread, and the means of calculating its diameter using an astrolabe was known to both scholars and navigators.[11] A spherical Earth had been the general opinion of Ancient Greek science, and this view continued through the Middle Ages (for example, Bede mentions it in The Reckoning of Time). In fact Eratosthenes had measured the diameter of the Earth with good precision in the second century BC.[12] Where Columbus did differ from the generally accepted view of his time is his (incorrect) arguments that assumed a significantly smaller diameter for the Earth, claiming that Asia could be easily reached by sailing west across the Atlantic. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's correct assessment that the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, comprising Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, and dismissed Columbus's claim that the Earth was much smaller, and that Asia was only a few thousand nautical miles to the west of Europe. Columbus's error was put down to his lack of experience in navigation at sea.
-
A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.
So then how do you account for the inconsistency of that universal constant?
How can a universal constant be inconsistent? It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force. It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me. It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it. It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth
Wait, I have to agree with Tom?
You wanted to know who said that, I told you. I said nothing about you having to agree with it.
So in spherical earth theory, gravity is a force?
According to Newton it is, especially since gravity is neither a mass, nor an accleleration.