The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Raver on June 18, 2010, 04:14:38 AM
-
UA states that earth rushes up towards us at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. The RE theory states that we are being "pulled down" by earth's gravity at roughly the same number. Now to get to the point, if I go out and measure the acceleration of a falling object on earth, I can observe that the number differs from area to area. This observation is easily explained with the RE'ers gravity, as the earth's "pull" is weaker or stronger depending on the distance to the earth's core. So on the northpole the acceleration is higher than on the eqautor, which holds true to our observations and measurements.
In the aformentioned FET however it would mean that different parts of the disc are accelerating at different speeds. The disc shape therefor disappears over time and (according to the FE map) the world would have a sinusoid like shape when a crossection is viewed from the side. In fact over a period of time the disc would just disintegrate (the earth can only "stretch" so far).
Please explain this to us, FE'ers.
-
UA states that earth rushes up towards us at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. The RE theory states that we are being "pulled down" by earth's gravity at roughly the same number. Now to get to the point, if I go out and measure the acceleration of a falling object on earth, I can observe that the number differs from area to area. This observation is easily explained with the RE'ers gravity, as the earth's "pull" is weaker or stronger depending on the distance to the earth's core. So on the northpole the acceleration is higher than on the eqautor, which holds true to our observations and measurements.
In the aformentioned FET however it would mean that different parts of the disc are accelerating at different speeds. The disc shape therefor disappears over time and (according to the FE map) the world would have a sinusoid like shape when a crossection is viewed from the side. In fact over a period of time the disc would just disintegrate (the earth can only "stretch" so far).
Please explain this to us, FE'ers.
If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.
-
If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.
But then the FET is flawed in that it is saying that there is gravity, or is the FET going to tell me that only "special" celestial bodies of mass may "have gravity". BTW. let us not turn this into the little semantic game of gravity/gravitation that TB seems to like to play. (Not implying that you were doing that)
-
If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.
But then the FET is flawed in that it is saying that there is gravity, or is the FET going to tell me that only "special" celestial bodies of mass may "have gravity". BTW. let us not turn this into the little semantic game of gravity/gravitation that TB seems to like to play. (Not implying that you were doing that)
Well, I wouldn't say that is a flaw just because one set of things have gravitational pull and others don't. The Earth is not like the heavenly bodies.
-
Well, I wouldn't say that is a flaw just because one set of things have gravitational pull and others don't. The Earth is not like the heavenly bodies.
It just seems a bit too convenient that these heavenly bodies excert the precise amount of gravitational pull on the exact areas that can be explained by a RE. Or is the FET now going to tell me that there is a higher concentration of planets above the northpole (and a lower one above the eqautor) compared to other areas?
-
If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.
But then the FET is flawed in that it is saying that there is gravity, or is the FET going to tell me that only "special" celestial bodies of mass may "have gravity". BTW. let us not turn this into the little semantic game of gravity/gravitation that TB seems to like to play. (Not implying that you were doing that)
Well, I wouldn't say that is a flaw just because one set of things have gravitational pull and others don't. The Earth is not like the heavenly bodies.
The earth is made up of atoms which have mass. Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation, so why would the earth not cause gravitation?
-
If UA is true, one explanation given is that the heavens have a gravitational pull that is responsible for this.
But then the FET is flawed in that it is saying that there is gravity, or is the FET going to tell me that only "special" celestial bodies of mass may "have gravity". BTW. let us not turn this into the little semantic game of gravity/gravitation that TB seems to like to play. (Not implying that you were doing that)
Well, I wouldn't say that is a flaw just because one set of things have gravitational pull and others don't. The Earth is not like the heavenly bodies.
The earth is made up of atoms which have mass. Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation, so why would the earth not cause gravitation?
This.
the theory assumes that the equivalency principal is void, i.e. gravitational mass doesn't equal inertial mass. this is absurd, because the difference between matter in the earth versus matter above is nominal. So the answer is simply, it is impossible for UA to exist. primarily because things can't accelerate at different rates vertically and have the same height. jack's statement about causality is incorrect, because locally, the difference of acceleration due to causality is nowhere near on the degree of .01m/s. parsifal's argument from personal incredulity is even worse
-
primarily because things can't accelerate at different rates vertically and have the same height.
Please, review Born rigidity and especially Rindler coordinates. I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress. For the object to maintain its proper length, its parts must experience different rates of acceleration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath422/kmath422.htm
-
primarily because things can't accelerate at different rates vertically and have the same height.
Please, review Born rigidity and especially Rindler coordinates. I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress. For the object to maintain its proper length, its parts must experience different rates of acceleration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath422/kmath422.htm
rif-->notice the same height statement. altitude isn't the only thing that varies g
Also, have you calculated the differences in acceleration from tip to tale of an object 500m in length accelerating at g? and does this value coincide with the differences seen irl? you've given a phenomenon, but not presented how it could give the observed effects on the scale observed. I even said Jack in my post so that you would hopefully read it carefully, but my efforts were in vain
-
Jack must have taken a class that went over relativity for a couple lessons, and now considers himself an expert in the subject. He likes spouting off relativistic concepts, regardless of their relation to the topic at hand.
-
Jack must have taken a class that went over relativity for a couple lessons, and now considers himself an expert in the subject. He likes spouting off relativistic concepts, regardless of their relation to the topic at hand.
true statement. I'm still waiting for the maths to show how variation in acceleration due to born rigidity for an object 1000km in height is equal to observed values, and also that this variance has an inverse square proportion.
-
If I misinterpret your statement, I apologize. I thought you meant it is possible for a relativistic object to experience the same rate of acceleration along its length. As for calculating the variation of g using Born rigidity, I have not. According to the equations, either the values would be very small or the Earth would be extremely long in order to account the observed effects based on just Born rigidity alone. Fortunately, as I have said before in the other thread, we also have to account the gravitational pull of the stars. I am just saying that the Earth must undergo Born rigid motion in the proper reference frame regardless, in order to stay consistent with the laws of physics.
Jack must have taken a class that went over relativity for a couple lessons, and now considers himself an expert in the subject. He likes spouting off relativistic concepts, regardless of their relation to the topic at hand.
I never claimed myself to be an expert on the subject.
-
If I misinterpret your statement, I apologize. I thought you meant it is possible for a relativistic object to experience the same rate of acceleration along its length. As for calculating the variation of g using Born rigidity, I have not. According to the equations, either the values would be very small or the Earth would be extremely long in order to account the observed effects based on just Born rigidity alone. Fortunately, as I have said before in the other thread, we also have to account the gravitational pull of the stars. I am just saying that the Earth must undergo Born rigid motion in the proper reference frame regardless, in order to stay consistent with the laws of physics.
Jack must have taken a class that went over relativity for a couple lessons, and now considers himself an expert in the subject. He likes spouting off relativistic concepts, regardless of their relation to the topic at hand.
I never claimed myself to be an expert on the subject.
thats okay~
what I said was different acceleration at the same height. i.e. on the same horizontal plane. but regardless, you admit that there has to be a force impacting things at different heights differently. but why don't you think this force effects the earth?
-
I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.
Congratulations on once again destroying FET.
This seems to be quite a habit Brother Jack.
-
Congratulations on once again destroying FET.
No, I have not. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this.
thats okay~
what I said was different acceleration at the same height. i.e. on the same horizontal plane. but regardless, you admit that there has to be a force impacting things at different heights differently. but why don't you think this force effects the earth?
The reason is that since the accelerating Earth currently remains intact in the proper frame, it must be undergoing Born rigid motion.
-
Congratulations on once again destroying FET.
No, I have not. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this.
thats okay~
what I said was different acceleration at the same height. i.e. on the same horizontal plane. but regardless, you admit that there has to be a force impacting things at different heights differently. but why don't you think this force effects the earth?
The reason is that since the accelerating Earth currently remains intact in the proper frame, it must be undergoing Born rigid motion.
Uhm, SAME HEIGHT. nothing to do with born rigidity, which affects points parallel to the acceleration. you haven't answered my question, how could it affect objects not named earth but not the earth itself
-
No, I have not. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this.
I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.
-
I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.
Yeah, what about it? How does that destroy FET?
how could it affect objects not named earth but not the earth itself
What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. As for the variation of g at the same height, such variation is generally caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens.
-
What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. As for the variation of g at the same height, such variation is generally caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens.
Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?
-
Yeah, what about it? How does that destroy FET?
Because...
...Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.
-
Yeah, what about it? How does that destroy FET?
Because...
...Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.
LOLed at this. He cannot just grasp the concepts he is just saying!
-
I believe I was very clear in that Special Relativity does not allow the existence of a perfectly rigid body, due to the fact that it is impossible for the body to have the same acceleration on all its parts along its length without violating causality or undergoing indefinite stress.
Yeah, what about it? How does that destroy FET?
how could it affect objects not named earth but not the earth itself
What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. As for the variation of g at the same height, such variation is generally caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens.
Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else
-
Crustinator, I repeatedly asked you to explain how my statement contradicts FET, but you failed to do so and resorted to blank quoting instead. If you are not willing to contribute in Flat Earth Debate, stay out of it.
Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?
I have been thinking about this. I believe there are certain celestial bodies that do not move.
Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else
The Earth is not composed of gravitational mass.
-
Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?
I have been thinking about this. I believe there are certain celestial bodies that do not move.
Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else
The Earth is not composed of gravitational mass.
Why do all the celestial bodies we can see move? Are they invisible?
And why can we take metal from the ground, form them into spheres, and perform the Cavendish experiment on them and get a positive result? Do they only somehow become gravitational mass when they are taken above the surface of the earth?
-
Crustinator, I repeatedly asked you to explain how my statement contradicts FET, but you failed to do so and resorted to blank quoting instead. If you are not willing to contribute in Flat Earth Debate, stay out of it.
Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?
I have been thinking about this. I believe there are certain celestial bodies that do not move.
Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else
The Earth is not composed of gravitational mass.
Ok, so not only does the equivalence principle not exist, but some atoms have gravity but others don't. ok that's cool I guess. actually no, rocks have mass but the earth below doesn't? lava has mass when it comes to the crust, but not when its under the surface? are you for serious??? that's ludicrous
-
Why does the gravitational pull at that one spot remain constant even though the objects in the sky are moving?
I have been thinking about this. I believe there are certain celestial bodies that do not move.
Admittedly that was poorly phrased. I'm saying why wouldn't the heavenly bodies pull on the earth, if they pull on everything else
The Earth is not composed of gravitational mass.
Why do all the celestial bodies we can see move? Are they invisible?
And why can we take metal from the ground, form them into spheres, and perform the Cavendish experiment on them and get a positive result? Do they only somehow become gravitational mass when they are taken above the surface of the earth?
when it receives the name Earth, it ceases to have mass.
-
Crustinator, I repeatedly asked you to explain how my statement contradicts FET, but you failed to do so and resorted to blank quoting instead. If you are not willing to contribute in Flat Earth Debate, stay out of it.
Your statement directly disproves FET. You invoke Special Relativity to do it. Which part don't you understand? Since they're your own posts I thought you understood them. How wrong of me.
-
Your statement directly disproves FET. You invoke Special Relativity to do it. Which part don't you understand? Since they're your own posts I thought you understood them. How wrong of me.
Which part of Special Relativity disproves FET?
Ok, so not only does the equivalence principle not exist, but some atoms have gravity but others don't. ok that's cool I guess. actually no, rocks have mass but the earth below doesn't? lava has mass when it comes to the crust, but not when its under the surface? are you for serious??? that's ludicrous
I never said the Earth is not composed of matter, just that it is not composed of gravitational matter. Due to its unique properties (e.g., cylindrical instead of spherical), the Earth is unlike other bodies in the universe. Have we went through the entire universe to conclude that all bodies are composed of only one type of matter?
-
What makes the matter in the earth non-gravitational? And why does it suddenly become gravitational when we perform the Cavendish experiment on it?
-
What makes you think the Cavendish experiment was accurate and subject to no outside influence?
-
I asked you first.
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
-
Your statement directly disproves FET. You invoke Special Relativity to do it. Which part don't you understand? Since they're your own posts I thought you understood them. How wrong of me.
Which part of Special Relativity disproves FET?
Jack doesn't say. Perhaps you can ask him to expand on his answer.
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?
-
What makes the matter in the earth non-gravitational?
-
What makes the matter in the earth non-gravitational?
the same thing that lets thing reflect light, yet not be made of matter.
the FE'ers have gone to complete speculation that is wrong. any thing that reflects light must have electrons, as they are the carriers of the photon. electrons have gravitational mass along with the nucleus. inb4 the case against the nuclear atom
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?
Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?
Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
No, I will simply ask you to elaborate on the notion of curved light paths near the Sun. How does one measure a curvature in a light path?
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?
Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
No, I will simply ask you to elaborate on the notion of curved light paths near the Sun. How does one measure a curvature in a light path?
http://www.1919eclipse.org/
I think this can satisfy roughly your request. If you wanna know more use google. This is only a simple experiment, that was confirmed by many others, more and more accurate.
-
So much beating around the bushes and so few answers being given by the FE'ers. For instance, I would like the cavendish experiment explained to me.
Matter in earth turns into magic matter the moment I turn it into a ball? As to your statement Jack of effects from outside, how do you explain that these "effects" affect the "cavendish matter" and not the "earthly matter"? Oh wait, I see, we have wizzards using their spells, and I thought Harry Potter was fiction, silly me...
-
So much beating around the bushes and so few answers being given by the FE'ers. For instance, I would like the cavendish experiment explained to me.
There's also the Schiehallion experiment. I live just down the road from the mountain, so I guess in theory I could go and do the experiment myself.
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?
Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
No, I will simply ask you to elaborate on the notion of curved light paths near the Sun. How does one measure a curvature in a light path?
http://www.1919eclipse.org/
I think this can satisfy roughly your request. If you wanna know more use google. This is only a simple experiment, that was confirmed by many others, more and more accurate.
Regarding your link, this has been popular a few years back:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-researchers-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-researchers-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test)
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?
Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
No, I will simply ask you to elaborate on the notion of curved light paths near the Sun. How does one measure a curvature in a light path?
http://www.1919eclipse.org/
I think this can satisfy roughly your request. If you wanna know more use google. This is only a simple experiment, that was confirmed by many others, more and more accurate.
Regarding your link, this has been popular a few years back:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-researchers-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-researchers-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test)
"It has been claimed that Eddington's observations were of poor quality and he had unjustly discounted simultaneous observations at Sobral, Brazil which appeared closer to the Newtonian model[2]. The quality of the 1919 results was indeed poor compared to later observations, but was sufficient to persuade contemporary astronomers. The rejection of the results from the Brazil expedition was due to a defect in the telescopes used which, again, was completely accepted and well-understood by contemporary astronomers.[3]. The myth that Eddington's results were fraudulent is a modern invention."
Anyway, today more experiments have been done, confirming the theory.
-
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
How?
Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?
Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
No, I will simply ask you to elaborate on the notion of curved light paths near the Sun. How does one measure a curvature in a light path?
http://www.1919eclipse.org/
I think this can satisfy roughly your request. If you wanna know more use google. This is only a simple experiment, that was confirmed by many others, more and more accurate.
Regarding your link, this has been popular a few years back:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-researchers-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-researchers-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test)
"It has been claimed that Eddington's observations were of poor quality and he had unjustly discounted simultaneous observations at Sobral, Brazil which appeared closer to the Newtonian model[2]. The quality of the 1919 results was indeed poor compared to later observations, but was sufficient to persuade contemporary astronomers. The rejection of the results from the Brazil expedition was due to a defect in the telescopes used which, again, was completely accepted and well-understood by contemporary astronomers.[3]. The myth that Eddington's results were fraudulent is a modern invention."
Anyway, today more experiments have been done, confirming the theory.
Or, fabricating data.
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
that's because Zeteticism is one of the biggest trolling devices ever. when they state a theory, it is already proven by "logic". no data is needed, because if it shows a round earth, it must be fake. they say they hate predisposed conclusions, but their theories are only hypothesis, they allow for no change this way. its worse than dianetics and thetan science
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
If you don't want your time wasted, you are free to leave at any time. As for the topic at hand, nice to see that you don't have any proof for this claim:
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
If you don't want your time wasted, you are free to leave at any time. As for the topic at hand, nice to see that you don't have any proof for this claim:
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
cavendish
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
If you don't want your time wasted, you are free to leave at any time. As for the topic at hand, nice to see that you don't have any proof for this claim:
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
cavendish
the dubiousness of the experiment performed by Lord Cavendish has been debated time and again on these fora (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wwfCJ8YnJkfCd8MTUsMTgsMjAsMTIsMTAsOCwyLDcsMTMsMTYsMTEsM3wifHNob3dfY29tcGxldGV8J3x8InxzdWJqZWN0X29ubHl8J3x8Inxzb3J0fCd8cmVsZXZhbmNlfCJ8c29ydF9kaXJ8J3xkZXNjfCJ8c2VhcmNofCd8Y2F2ZW5kaXNo). Use the s
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
If you don't want your time wasted, you are free to leave at any time. As for the topic at hand, nice to see that you don't have any proof for this claim:
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
cavendish
the dubiousness of the experiment performed by Lord Cavendish has been debated time and again on these fora (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wwfCJ8YnJkfCd8MTUsMTgsMjAsMTIsMTAsOCwyLDcsMTMsMTYsMTEsM3wifHNob3dfY29tcGxldGV8J3x8InxzdWJqZWN0X29ubHl8J3x8Inxzb3J0fCd8cmVsZXZhbmNlfCJ8c29ydF9kaXJ8J3xkZXNjfCJ8c2VhcmNofCd8Y2F2ZW5kaXNo). Use the s
replications of cavedish
-
replications of cavedish
fragment. consider revising.
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
If you don't want your time wasted, you are free to leave at any time. As for the topic at hand, nice to see that you don't have any proof for this claim:
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
I have proofs, but why i have to posted here. You are too stupid or too troolish to understand it. Anyway, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Study something, if you want, or stay in your ignorance, but stop trolling.
-
the dubiousness denial of the experiment performed by Lord Cavendish has been debated time and again on these fora.
When in doubt, deny everything.
There's nothing really wrong with the Cavendish experiment, and it has only been improved since its inception. It is accepted as the world over.
-
It is accepted as the world over.
So was Christian dogma throughout Europe before the Renaissance.
-
It is accepted as the world over.
So was Christian dogma throughout Europe before the Renaissance.
Then by all means, prove it wrong.
-
So was Christian dogma throughout Europe before the Renaissance.
I see where your confusion lies.
Christian dogma /= objective, verifiable, falsifiable science.
-
if I go out and measure the acceleration of a falling object on earth, I can observe that the number differs from area to area
actually it's wind resistance and experimental error
-
if I go out and measure the acceleration of a falling object on earth, I can observe that the number differs from area to area
actually it's wind resistance and experimental error
And the wind resistance and experimental error decided to give the same errors year in year out, lol, stop trolling...
-
Or, fabricating data.
Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
If you don't want your time wasted, you are free to leave at any time. As for the topic at hand, nice to see that you don't have any proof for this claim:
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.
cavendish
the dubiousness of the experiment performed by Lord Cavendish has been debated time and again on these fora (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wwfCJ8YnJkfCd8MTUsMTgsMjAsMTIsMTAsOCwyLDcsMTMsMTYsMTEsM3wifHNob3dfY29tcGxldGV8J3x8InxzdWJqZWN0X29ubHl8J3x8Inxzb3J0fCd8cmVsZXZhbmNlfCJ8c29ydF9kaXJ8J3xkZXNjfCJ8c2VhcmNofCd8Y2F2ZW5kaXNo). Use the s
Oh I am sorry, I didn't realize I can make any statement I wish and then make it true by linking everyone to the search option of said statement. There is nothing to be found of which one can say that it is seriously disputing the cavendish experiment (well of course there is the "NOU argument") on this forum. So you have yet to show us why the cavendish experiment is to be considered "dubious".
Basically you have done this:
Santa exists as shown by several topics on these fora http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2)
-
IF UA was true.. The North Star would have gone below the horizon long ago, and starts in the sky near the horizon would go missing every few days.. UA is a pathetic argument to say the least, and giving the distance they claim we are from the sun, well, we would have slammed into it and long passed it up LMAO.. So by now there shouldn't be a sun if there is no such thing as Gravity lol..
-
Well the matter remains that my question has yet to be answered. Looks like a RE win.
-
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.
The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.
What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..
-
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.
The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.
What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..
UA would cause local gravity effects, because from the earths frame of reference, the projectile would be accelerating downward at g.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept
-
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.
The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.
What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..
UA would cause local gravity effects, because from the earths frame of reference, the projectile would be accelerating downward at g.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept
This is false, Upward force would have absolutely nothing to do with gravitational arc or pull.. And again this the object would not be accelerating downward unless you throw the ball at the ground (to which would not arc in this case). kiddo, if there is no gravitational pull in your little theory, UA would essentially be a horizontal zero G where the object wouldn't ark but rather come in contact with the ground once the ground catches up to the same horizontal plane.. Hence, if I tossed a ball up with zero vertical G the ball would never come back down because it would thus be traveling faster than the upward movement of the planet.. My GOD, where do you kids get your physics education from?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to physics.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept
It's called Energy son, energy self-oscillates, there is a reason why in thermodynamics absolute zero is impossible, it's because you can not stop energy from oscillating. It's the same reason why it's impossible to have -1 energy, or -1 spatial space.. And you do understand that matter is energy in different states correct? You do understand what the 4 stages of matter are, or what Zero point energy is correct?.
And lets take a look at the spotlight theory.. So tell me, when the Sun sets in the east and the disk you call the spotlight is on the Horizon line shining across the flat plane horizontally, how in the world is the same flat disk magically facing straight down at high noon at another position on Earth.. Do you people even think before you post this garbage? If the sun is setting it should be setting for the entire planet to the west at the same time in terms of visual reference of the spherical disks position you silly rabbit. So calling another part of the world where the sun is at High noon while it's setting here on the western horizon makes no logical sense in terms of a flat Earth with some magical disk spot light...
The fact that I have flown around the world, and sailed around the world, I know better than to consider such delusional nonsense as a flat Earth. What's even worse, You couldn't see the moon from all four sides of the planet to which is magically outside this spotlight, and this would be due to the spotlight being in the way, or line of site!. You would thus need 4 magically identical moons, and that would have angular problems setting to the west and rising eastward. Also at some point 2 or even all 4 moons would be visible to any given point of reference.. it's just gets really ridiculous really fast.. Apparently you haven't done your homework , and you can feel free to show us the spotlight effect 28 miles in the darkness looking across the horizon of (a light flashing down as it moves across a flat plane).. It's just simply biblical nonsense. Hell, if you put people at the 4 corners of your flat earth, none of them would see a flat sun disk or spotlight shining in their face if it were a flat disk shining down at high noon over a flat plane. It would be a visible cone shaped ray of light to where they would only see the rim of the disk (source of light)..Good luck showing that!. Thus you can't place a 2d disk spotlight object above a flat plane without epically failing in regards to angular point of view when I can call another place on the globe and have it at high noon while it's setting on the western horizon from my point of view, and this couldn't be done without both the sun and the Earth being spheres kiddo., And this becomes even more of an epic fail as I call other points of view, or places on the globe to where I add 4 or even 50 other sources of reference.. And then you have to explain why the sun is setting to the West while it's rising to the East at another location LOL.. Hello! That can only be done if the Planet is a Sphere people! Your Logic is laughable.
So, do you know how to navigate by the stars and the sun? Do you comprehend why it would be impossible to sail around the world on a flat Earth, or even get lost, much less continue east or west to end up around the world and back where you started from? .. I can tell that many people here are not very intelligent, or are intentionally spreading nonsense in a religious manner. This site is the same reason why they make videos at why people laugh at creationists.
And it's very interesting that my original post here gets Locked,
So you have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the fact that I can sail from Boston to Japan (2 year trip for me with stops along the way), And from Japan to Jhonston Atoll Island, and then to Hawii and California. (All together a 3.5 year voyage). And you are going to have to explain why the Sun, Stars, and GPS all directed me to exactly where I needed to GO without the Stars or Sun being on the wrong side of the Boat LOL.. What's worse, you FET's need to actually establish where on the global map to which I can not cross going east, west, south, and north.. Hence you are going to have to prove your ridiculous argument by unfolding the the spherical map LOL... Thus, if you divide it between Alaska and Asia, we shouldn't be able to see Russia from Alaska (sorry Palin joke)..
-
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.
The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.
What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..
UA would cause local gravity effects, because from the earths frame of reference, the projectile would be accelerating downward at g.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept
This is false, Upward force would have absolutely nothing to do with gravitational arc or pull.. And again this the object would not be accelerating downward unless you throw the ball at the ground (to which would not arc in this case). kiddo, if there is no gravitational pull in your little theory, UA would essentially be a horizontal zero G where the object wouldn't ark but rather come in contact with the ground once the ground catches up to the same horizontal plane.. Hence, if I tossed a ball up with zero vertical G the ball would never come back down because it would thus be traveling faster than the upward movement of the planet.. My GOD, where do you kids get your physics education from?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to physics.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept
It's called Energy son, energy self-oscillates, there is a reason why in thermodynamics absolute zero is impossible, it's because you can not stop energy from oscillating. It's the same reason why it's impossible to have -1 energy, or -1 spatial space.. And you do understand that matter is energy in different states correct? You do understand what the 4 stages of matter are, or what Zero point energy is correct?.
And lets take a look at the spotlight theory lol.. So tell me, when the Sun sets in the east and the disk you call the spotlight is on the Horizon line shining across the flat plane horizontally, how in the world is the same flat disk magically facing straight down at high noon at the other side of the planet LMAO.. Do you people even think before you post this garbage?.. Hence, if the sun is setting it should be setting for the entire planet to the west at the same time you silly rabbit. So me calling another part of the world where the sun is in High noon while it's setting makes no logical sense in terms of a flat Earth with some magical spot light... And the fact that I have flown around the world, and sailed around the world, I know better than to consider such delusional nonsense as a flat Earth.. What's even worse, You couldn't see the damn moon from all four sides of the planet to which is magically outside this spotlight because the spotlight would be in the way, or line of site LOL, You would need 4 magically identical moons lol, and that would have angular problems setting west ward and rising eastward, and at some point all 4 moons would be visible.. it's just gets really ridiculous really fast.. Apparently you haven't done your homework.. And you can feel free to show us the spotlight effect 28 miles in the darkness looking across the horizon of a magical light flashing down as it moves across a flat plane.. It's just simply biblical nonsense.
Tell me, do you know how to navigate by the stars and the sun? Do you comprehend why it would be impossible to sail around the world on a flat Earth, or even get lost, much less continue east or west to end up around the world and back where you started from? .. I can tell that many people here are not very intelligent, or are intentionally spreading nonsense in a religious manner. This site is the same reason why they make videos at why people laugh at creationists.
And it's very interesting that my original post here gets Locked,
So you have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the fact that I can sail from Boston to Japan (2 year trip for me with stops along the way), And from Japan to Jhonston Atoll Island, and then to Hawii and California. (All together a 3.5 year voyage). And you are going to have to explain why the Sun, Stars, and GPS all directed me to exactly where I needed to GO without the Stars or Sun being on the wrong side of the Boat LOL.. What's worse, you FET's need to actually establish where on the global map to which I can not cross going east, west, south, and north.. Hence you are going to have to prove your ridiculous argument by unfolding the the spherical map LOL... Hence, if you divide it between Alaska and Asia, we shouldn't be able to see Russia from Alaska (sorry Palin joke).
I''m saying, what could cause The earth to move upward at g?
the energy source would have to move too, obviously the FE model is constantly increasing in energy, which is pretty stupid
-
I''m saying, what could cause The earth to move upward at g?
the energy source would have to move too, obviously the FE model is constantly increasing in energy, which is pretty stupid
Direct Answer.. Another Star, Planet, or even a Black hole.. It would require another attractor, or exerted force to move Earth from it's orbit. However, our Sun and the solar system is in fact moving relative to other galaxies ect. You can say it's moving up relative to another object, or moving down relative to another object.
In regards to why UA is laughable,
The Earth moving upward only has energy moving in 1 direction, and that is up!. Their would be no horizontal G, and if you tossed a ball straight up, it's energy would be greater than the up force energy from the Planet.. And since there would be no gravitational "pull" there would be zero vertical G, and only vertical energy.. Hence, the ball would never come down because there is no gravity to pull it back down.. Thus the ball would actually leave Earth and never come back while continuing to increase distance due to the vertical velocity and energy being greater than the Earth's. UA is inherently a laughable concept because under this concept I could actually jump off the face of the Earth and never come back.. It's apparently obvious that nobody here understands how gravity works, or how energy and G-force is applied and applicable in regards to vertical and horizontal planes.. The reason why you can jump in an elevator to where the elevator can catch up to you is because there is gravitational pull.. UA equals epic fail.. What's even more interesting is that without gravitational pull, you wouldn't weigh anything.. Hence if you are standing in a field, your vertical energy and velocity would be equal to that of the earth's.. This is kind of like how you can travel in a car at 60 mph without being pinned to the back seat unable to freely move about.. Now imagine that in zero G.. The other problem is that It wouldn't rain under UA without gravitational pull, it's really difficult to have weather patterns, and cycles if all energy is vertical energy in terms of velocity.
The UA argument is like listening to someone who posted the following
Our FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics
They obviously have no clue in regards to the second law, much less understand all the laws of thermodynamics.. It's like watching laymen morons post philosophical ideological circular nonsense.. Hence, pretending to actually know wtf they are talking about while phishing for people they can actually brainwash into their little ideology.. You do realize this site is in regards to the Christian faith, or bible correct?.. It's essentially a creationist website.
-
^Is a winner. UA vs Gravity=Gavity wins
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
As regards the rest of your post, I think your misconception lies in the fact that you are completely ignorant of Einstein's equivalence principle. Please look that up because despite what the cheerleader above says you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
As regards the rest of your post, I think your misconception lies in the fact that you are completely ignorant of Einstein's equivalence principle. Please look that up because despite what the cheerleader above says you have no idea what you're talking about.
Wrong. RET has gravity in all directions. No EP doesn't not explain the evidence against the UA.
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
As regards the rest of your post, I think your misconception lies in the fact that you are completely ignorant of Einstein's equivalence principle. Please look that up because despite what the cheerleader above says you have no idea what you're talking about.
Wrong. RET has gravity in all directions. No EP doesn't not explain the evidence against the UA.
You should learn to consider context before posting that someone is wrong. You'll be wrong less often that way.
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.
See, you're just being pedantic. There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of. It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth. The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.
See, you're just being pedantic. There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of. It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth. The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
1) There is no horizontal G with gravity either
2) There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity
3) ?
::)
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.
See, you're just being pedantic. There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of. It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth. The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
1) There is no horizontal G with gravity either
2) There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity
3) ?
::)
As I said about markjo, you're being pedantic. It's okay, I guess it's all you've got.
-
The "cheerleader" here says that you are wrong Roundy, but will not admit to being so. You misunderstood (or just could not grasp) what Jackel was saying, you therefor try to attack his argument (pluspoints for attacking the argument for once and not the person making it) but fail utterly as shown by Clocktower and Markjo. Rather than admitting you are wrong, you instead commit blindly to your statement, basically because you are scared to lose face. Obviously debating isn't something that lies very well with you.
Oh btw Roundy, you once again (you really do like showing this off don't you?) show to us that a high post count does not say anything about post quality, as shown by you insulting people and resorting to altering your own statements after you have made them.
-
The "cheerleader" here says that you are wrong Roundy, but will not admit being so. You misunderstood (or just could not grasp) what Jackel was saying, you therefor try to attack his argument (pluspoints for attacking the argument for once and not the person making it) but fail utterly as shown by Clocktower and Markjo. Rather than admitting you are wrong, you instead commit blindly to your statement, basically because you are scared to lose face. Obviously debating isn't something that lies very well with you.
I misunderstood nothing. It's a fact: he's wrong about his claims about UA vs gravity, and he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
I believe I corrected my previous mistake. Yes, I just admitted that I made a mistake, which is more than ClockTower has ever done. My mistake doesn't change that the post TheJackel made is completely ignorant of the equivalent principle and he makes a number of incorrect assumptions. Or that the kind of "horizontal gravity" that was brought up would not be experienced in any way like he envisions.
I'm afraid that if you thought TheJackel won the debate with that wall of falsities you don't understand what is being discussed either. Perhaps you should look up the equivalent principle before posting on the subject as well.
-
You are basically saying everyone but you understands anything and should STFU. I thought Hitler died a long time ago?
The matter remains that you said Jackel is wrong about the whole "horizontal G" thing, which he is not, you are wrong as shown by Clocktower and Markjo. Not only that. You then continue to contradict yourself and being a rude swine for afforementioned reason. And the best you can do is cry "pedantics"? You out of ALL people on this site have the nerve to claim they are being pedantic?
-
Their would be no horizontal G
There is no horizontal G with gravity either.
Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.
See, you're just being pedantic. There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of. It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth. The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
1) There is no horizontal G with gravity either
2) There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity
3) ?
::)
As I said about markjo, you're being pedantic. It's okay, I guess it's all you've got.
So you can't respond to the challenge that you don't understand EP. It's okay. I guess it's all you've got.
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally. There is non-negligible 'gravity' that is not straight down. Thus the UA is falsified and with it FET.
-
No, he is just saying that TheJackel does not understand a fundamental physical fact.
EDIT:
Clocktower is Gulliver.
-
You are basically saying everyone but you understands anything and should STFU.
Not at all. I'm saying you should familiarize yourself with the subject material before commenting on it. It's not like I'm saying you're wrong without giving any indication of why; I told you what you need to look up to see for yourself why you're wrong. Are you going to do it, or will you choose to keep making an ass of yourself?
-
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.
TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity. Do try to keep up.
-
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.
TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity. Do try to keep up.
Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.
-
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.
TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity. Do try to keep up.
Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.
So when Wikipedia says on its page about EP
In the physics of general relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
it's talking about a point "standing" on a massive body? Yeah, whatever.
-
Roundy, you are being childish now :-\. I am wrong because I am wrong and should show myself why I am wrong? Furthermore I would like to point out that I can't actually be wrong about anything seeing as I haven't actually made a statement on the topic at hand (the whole horizontal G discussion etc. on the perceding page), all I was doing was showing how your posts are flawed and obnoxious.
-
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.
TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity. Do try to keep up.
Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.
So when Wikipedia says on its page about EP
In the physics of general relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
it's talking about a point "standing" on a massive body? Yeah, whatever.
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
-
Roundy, you are being childish now :-\. I am wrong because I am wrong and should show myself why I am wrong?
Where do you get that from? No, you are wrong because you don't understand what you're talking about and should look it up before commenting. How exactly is that childish? How is it the least bit unreasonable?
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
So points are capable of observation, now? That's very interesting. Would you care to back that up?
-
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
So points are capable of observation, now? That's very interesting. Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.
-
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
So points are capable of observation, now? That's very interesting. Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.
Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then. By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation. Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."
But please, do try. You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.
-
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
So points are capable of observation, now? That's very interesting. Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.
Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then. By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation. Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."
But please, do try. You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.
Again, I never said that EP is only experienced by a point. Again, the ball in TheJackel's post is not at the point, so it experiences forces that are not governed by the EP when applied to the first point. I've said this to you several times. I would hope by now you can see your error.
-
Roundy, you are being childish now :-\. I am wrong because I am wrong and should show myself why I am wrong?
Where do you get that from? No, you are wrong because you don't understand what you're talking about and should look it up before commenting. How exactly is that childish? How is it the least bit unreasonable?
Please when quoting me, quote the whole thing as chances are you might actually read the whole thing then. This would lead to you understanding why it was childish and unreasonable.
(I also consider resorting to insults such as calling me a cheerleader or any of your other unnecessary insults childish)
EDIT:
Just to give an example.
But please, do try. You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.
A childish remark only meant as an attempt to aggrevate Clocktower.
-
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ (http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/)
More RE propaganda!
-
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
So points are capable of observation, now? That's very interesting. Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.
Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then. By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation. Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."
But please, do try. You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.
Again, I never said that EP is only experienced by a point. Again, the ball in TheJackel's post is not at the point, so it experiences forces that are not governed by the EP when applied to the first point. I've said this to you several times. I would hope by now you can see your error.
You really do make it too easy.
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.
Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.
-
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
So points are capable of observation, now? That's very interesting. Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.
Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then. By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation. Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."
But please, do try. You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.
Again, I never said that EP is only experienced by a point. Again, the ball in TheJackel's post is not at the point, so it experiences forces that are not governed by the EP when applied to the first point. I've said this to you several times. I would hope by now you can see your error.
You really do make it too easy.
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.
Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I? I can describe where a principle applies with 'at' or with 'locally'. How you decided that I said 'by a point' only points to your issues.
Again, TheJackel's point stands. The EP does not apply once observations of the acceleration are made from two points. Now I believe your next move is to declare that stars and their 'gravity' account for the difference, right?
-
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
[/quote]
1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)
That's the logic you're using. Again, I love it when you are wrong. It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
-
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)
That's the logic you're using. Again, I love it when you are wrong. It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand. It's a common error. But you really should avoid being arrogant that you understand EP better than someone else when you don't understand where it applies. Remember that UA fails to explain the observed acceleration due to 'gravity' at various location on the Earth because EP applies only locally.
-
It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
Such an accurate description of yourself, try to add insultive next time though.
-
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)
That's the logic you're using. Again, I love it when you are wrong. It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.[/quote]
Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP. I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.
It's a common error. But you really should avoid being arrogant that you understand EP better than someone else when you don't understand where it applies. Remember that UA fails to explain the observed acceleration due to 'gravity' at various location on the Earth because EP applies only locally.
How is that relevant? How does that change the fact that TheJackel was wrong about each and every one of the statements he made regarding gravity vs UA because he wasn't taking the equivalence principle into account?
Why do you try to prevent people from learning new things? The equivalence principle invalidates everything TheJackel argued. That's all I claimed, and that's all there is to it. He thinks we don't understand gravity, when it's clear he has no clue about acceleration. I'm trying to guide people in the right direction here. You are preventing them from realizing their errors. As you represent a person trying to help people learn, when you clearly have no interest in doing so, and actually take great pains to prevent their learning anything new (as here), I can only conclude that... you're just a troll. Am I right?
-
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)
That's the logic you're using. Again, I love it when you are wrong. It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.
Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP. I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.
I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA because of EP.
-
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)
That's the logic you're using. Again, I love it when you are wrong. It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.
Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP. I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.
I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA because of EP.
By all means, back this statement up.
-
And yet again Roundy has to resort to insults, it remains that Jackel was right and you are graspings for straws (or rather insults) and trying to intimidate people into going along with that which you say. As it stands you are a very obnoxious and childish poster in this thread.
-
And yet again Roundy has to resort to insults, it remains that Jackel was right and you are graspings for straws (or rather insults) and trying to intimidate people into going along with that which you say. As it stands you are a very obnoxious and childish poster in this thread.
Spare me.
-
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)
That's the logic you're using. Again, I love it when you are wrong. It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.
Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP. I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.
I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA because of EP.
By all means, back this statement up.
Already done.
-
And yet again Roundy has to resort to insults, it remains that Jackel was right and you are graspings for straws (or rather insults) and trying to intimidate people into going along with that which you say. As it stands you are a very obnoxious and childish poster in this thread.
Spare me.
Really, you are. I am not even saying you are wrong about the EP discussion you are having (I only said you your statement about horizontal G was wrong). Your way of arguing though, even if you are right, is, as said before, childish and rude.
-
Nowhere in those quotes do I say "by a point", do I?
1. Local in the EP means at a point only.
2. The EP applies only locally.
3. The EP applies only at a point. (consequence of 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it's impossible for an observer larger than a point to experience EP. (consequence of 3)
That's the logic you're using. Again, I love it when you are wrong. It's always so entertaining to see you repeatedly fail in your attempts to get out of it rather than just admitting that you made a mistake.
That's your logic, not mine. Also, your fourth point does not follow since you can experience, or perhaps more precisely measure, very small areas. If you're disappointed that you misunderstood EP, we understand.
Back up your assertion that I've misunderstood EP. I'm absolutely positive that you're wrong.
I find that your four points above do a great job of backing up my assertion that you've misunderstood EP. Once you understand that EP is a thought experiment and valid only at a point then maybe you can try to educate others. Until then, I do hope you'll stop saying others are wrong about UA because of EP.
By all means, back this statement up.
Already done.
No it wasn't. But I'll wait.
-
Hi everyone.
First of all, sorry if I make some mistakes writing, I'm spanish and my english isn't perfect.
Second... It was very hard to me to believe that this site isn't a great joke. Flat Earth? Surrounded by an 'Ice Wall'?
Well, on the subject... You FE'rs say that Earth is constantly accelerating upwards, so, to us, the effect is exactly as with gravity. Well, okay. Then appears the question: why don't we crash into the sun and moon? Ah, okay, the moon, the sun and the other planets are being accelerated in the same way by that misterious "force". Then, if I jump, the Earth will catch me again, and it is as I have fallen into Earth, no?
Well, my question: Why don't this misterious force that affects everything, pushing it upwards, push me also, accelerating me so I'll never fall again? Oh, I know... this "force" only affects everything... that is no over Earth, isn't it?
Please, people, seriously you don't know what a science theory is, don't you? A science theory is a construction that:
1-explains something that has been observed, and,
2-can predict something that can be proved right or false.
You don't have a theory that explains things and predicts observations. You say what is convenient to your beliefs according to what is being discussed. Science doesn't work like that, people.
-
Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but if there is no gravity, then why is it that when you hold a ball above the ground and then let go, it has an initial velocity equal to that of the earth, and then decreases in velocity (aka falls to the ground)? According to physics, the only way that ball should decrease in velocity is if it's acted upon by another force. Normally this is due to surface tension/friction from the surrounding air, however if the air is traveling at the same velocity of the earth, then it should not apply any force on the ball. In addition, how is it that it loses velocity at exactly the same acceleration that the Earth is gaining velocity?
When you let go of a ball it is no longer moving with the earth(as there is nothing transfering the force from the earth accelerating upwards) but instead the earth is moving up to it.
I hope this answered your question