The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Kogelblitz on December 03, 2015, 12:55:47 AM
-
On a flat earth with universal gravity an object would weigh the same everywhere, because it is a plane accelerating normal to its axis, right? then g should be constant and equal to acceleration. So why does the amount of molecules which make up one kilogram at the north pole weigh less at the equator?
-
The UA model is flawed for multiple reasons. It also supposes, for example, an infinite source of energy to provide perpetual acceleration on a tremendous mass.
There are alternatives. DET explicitly addresses the question of concentration: the downwards force is more concentrated the further towards a pole you go, and for that matter would decrease with altitude too, as you pass the whirlpools which cause it.
-
What causes this to happen on DE?
-
What causes this to happen on DE?
Learn the model, it's a lot to go into. See sig.
-
It's because centripetal acceleration on a rotating sphere counteracts some of the gravitational pull. I think that's a logical explanation.
I tried to read your story but I could not find the explanation for this, could you elaborate?
-
It's because centripetal acceleration on a rotating sphere counteracts some of the gravitational pull. I think that's a logical explanation.
I tried to read your story but I could not find the explanation for this, could you elaborate?
If you're not going to read the model, I'm not going to waste time on you. The gist is that aether (which causes the downwards force in DET) will be concentrated more at certain areas and altitudes. The details require you to actually learn the model.
I've said this before. Learn the model and stop wasting time.
-
Sounds more like a religion to me, but if its any good then the explanation should and based on fewer assumptions then previous models, right?
-
Sounds more like a religion to me, but if its any good then the explanation should and based on fewer assumptions then previous models, right?
How is it a religion to ask that you have the slightest clue what you're talkng about?! That's how science works. If you attend a lecture on relativity, you'll get kicked out if you keep demanding they explain basic concepts like velocity and light.
It is based on fewer assumptions. Once again, I ask you to LEARN THE MODEL.
-
You should definetly compare Dual Earth Fantasy with the General Relativity more often, makes you appear intelligent!
-
General Relativity has very much to do with the speed of light, I'd be suprised of you could go through a lecture without it!
-
What are you on about now?!
-
There are alternatives. DET explicitly addresses the question of concentration: the downwards force is more concentrated the further towards a pole you go, and for that matter would decrease with altitude too, as you pass the whirlpools which cause it.
Does it also include local deviations based on local density of minerals/rocks. Also changes in concentration would have to be very small (since the acceleration change is small).
Looking at the map of gravitational deviation you run into troubles (red-higher, blue-lower):
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/images/screenshots/various/earth_Informational_maps_1__Ton_Lindemann.jpg (http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/images/screenshots/various/earth_Informational_maps_1__Ton_Lindemann.jpg)
-
Does it also include local deviations based on local density of minerals/rocks.
Is there evidence for this, or just assertion based on presupposing RET?
Also changes in concentration would have to be very small (since the acceleration change is small).
At this level, they are.
-
Is there evidence for this, or just assertion based on presupposing RET?
Higher density = higher mass = higher gravitational force. Changes are not huge, but sensitive devices can measure them (see the link at the end).
You can clearly see that around mountain chains there are red spots, but close to deep ocean, blue spots. This is however not a 100% working rule.
The map I linked earlier was provided by the following mission:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666)
-
Is there evidence for this, or just assertion based on presupposing RET?
Higher density = higher mass = higher gravitational force. Changes are not huge, but sensitive devices can measure them (see the link at the end).
You can clearly see that around mountain chains there are red spots, but close to deep ocean, blue spots. This is however not a 100% working rule.
The map I linked earlier was provided by the following mission:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666)
That doesn't explain anything, beyond handwaving that it happened.
If that's not a complete working rule, then you may just be working from correlation bias. Science should be composed of working rules.
-
Is there evidence for this, or just assertion based on presupposing RET?
Higher density = higher mass = higher gravitational force. Changes are not huge, but sensitive devices can measure them (see the link at the end).
You can clearly see that around mountain chains there are red spots, but close to deep ocean, blue spots. This is however not a 100% working rule.
The map I linked earlier was provided by the following mission:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666)
That doesn't explain anything, beyond handwaving that it happened.
If that's not a complete working rule, then you may just be working from correlation bias. Science should be composed of working rules.
Just because you don't understand science doesen't mean its not true. And no, science don't explain everything, that's the beauty of it, if it did, it wouldn't be much fun because there would be nothing left to discover.
-
Is there evidence for this, or just assertion based on presupposing RET?
Higher density = higher mass = higher gravitational force. Changes are not huge, but sensitive devices can measure them (see the link at the end).
You can clearly see that around mountain chains there are red spots, but close to deep ocean, blue spots. This is however not a 100% working rule.
The map I linked earlier was provided by the following mission:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666)
That doesn't explain anything, beyond handwaving that it happened.
If that's not a complete working rule, then you may just be working from correlation bias. Science should be composed of working rules.
Just because you don't understand science doesen't mean its not true. And no, science don't explain everything, that's the beauty of it, if it did, it wouldn't be much fun because there would be nothing left to discover.
How about you say something that's actually relevant rather than spouting platitudes meant to patronize and humiliate irrespective of truth?
-
Is there evidence for this, or just assertion based on presupposing RET?
Higher density = higher mass = higher gravitational force. Changes are not huge, but sensitive devices can measure them (see the link at the end).
You can clearly see that around mountain chains there are red spots, but close to deep ocean, blue spots. This is however not a 100% working rule.
The map I linked earlier was provided by the following mission:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666)
That doesn't explain anything, beyond handwaving that it happened.
If that's not a complete working rule, then you may just be working from correlation bias. Science should be composed of working rules.
*sigh* The variations in gravity are explained by Einstein's field equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) and a good deal of observation and experimentation over the last 100 years.
-
Is there evidence for this, or just assertion based on presupposing RET?
Higher density = higher mass = higher gravitational force. Changes are not huge, but sensitive devices can measure them (see the link at the end).
You can clearly see that around mountain chains there are red spots, but close to deep ocean, blue spots. This is however not a 100% working rule.
The map I linked earlier was provided by the following mission:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3666)
That doesn't explain anything, beyond handwaving that it happened.
If that's not a complete working rule, then you may just be working from correlation bias. Science should be composed of working rules.
*sigh* The variations in gravity are explained by Einstein's field equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) and a good deal of observation and experimentation over the last 100 years.
I know the theoretical justification and that we have indeed observed some variation: I was asking after a specific instance.
-
I know the theoretical justification and that we have indeed observed some variation: I was asking after a specific instance.
Do you mean an instance like gravimetric surveying used for resource exploration?
http://www.geosoft.com/gravity-and-magnetic-methods-oil-exploration (http://www.geosoft.com/gravity-and-magnetic-methods-oil-exploration)
http://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/magnetic-and-gravity-methods-in-mineral-exploration (http://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/magnetic-and-gravity-methods-in-mineral-exploration)
https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/geoscience/projects/astronauts/gravity_method.html (https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/geoscience/projects/astronauts/gravity_method.html)
-
Sometimes I just scratch my head & think about life & stuff.
Expantion & Contraction . Hot & cold .
-
Aren't you going to add something related to topic, Charlie?
-
How could he?
This website has no topic.
-
Answering to JRoweSkeptic, a device called gravitometer (basically, a vertical seismometer or accelerometer) is used to measure the acceleration that mass suffers in a specific place. Gravitometers are usually strong enough to measure the pull of both the sun and the moon. Lower density rocks cause a drop in the acceleration perceived, so they are commonly used for surveying. As a cheapo repleacement for such an expensive and professional device, a sufficently accurate post card balance can be used to measure the difference in weight of objects in different locations, although careful callibration would probably be required.
-
Aren't you going to add something related to topic, Charlie?
Temperature & Humidity effects inertia & resistance, hence variants in gravity acorrding to climate at location
-
Aren't you going to add something related to topic, Charlie?
Temperature & Humidity effects inertia & resistance, hence variants in gravity acorrding to climate at location
Gravitometers are usually contained in a partial vacuum, and need to be termally controlled (they are very sensitive). So I dont think that's the case.
-
On a flat earth with universal gravity an object would weigh the same everywhere, because it is a plane accelerating normal to its axis, right? then g should be constant and equal to acceleration. So why does the amount of molecules which make up one kilogram at the north pole weigh less at the equator?
if we suppose that the disk (the earth) is rotative (according to your comprehension) the molecules wich make up one kilogram at the north pole will always weigh less at the equator don't you think so ? further more, if the earth was round, turning around itself, the molecules which make up a kilogram at the north pole would weigh more at the eaquator ! did you think about that ? if i'll push you away, your weight will remain the same, but if i'll push you up (like on a lift) your weight will change (have you ever seen a helicopter ?) " Further more don't believe that all those who think the earth is flat, agree with earth acceleration thoeries.
"Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but most of them do not know" 27:61 The Holy Koran
-
No Mohamed, I have never seen a helicopter, what is that? But if you put this helicopter thing inside a sentrifuge it will weigh more! Strap it on the outside and it will fly off!
-
No Mohamed, I have never seen a helicopter, what is that?
You don't know what a helicopter is ? just open your mind Mr.Einstein :
1- Helicopters (and other machines) = " And [by] those who blow violently " Verse 5:3 The Holy Koran
2- Planes = " And [by] those who fly high " Verse 51:1 The Holy Koran
3- Submarines = " and by those who pull down [as if] drowning " 79:1 The Holy Koran
4- Boats = "And [by] those who glide [as if] swimming " 79:3 The Holy Koran
5- Speed trains = " And those who precede others in a race " 79:4 The Holy Koran
6- Buses = " And [by] those moving with ease " 51:3 The Holy Koran
7- Trucks = " And [by] those carrying a load " 51:2 The Holy Koran
8- Factories = " And [by] those apportioning [each] matter " 51:4 The Holy Koran
8- Roads and Highways = " And [by] those who bifurcates " 77:4 The Holy Koran
6- Computers = " And [by] those who arrange [each] matter "
7- electromenagers device (and other materials) = " And [by] those who remove with ease " 79:2 The Holy Koran
8- Phones = " And those who recite messages " 37:3 The Holy Koran
9- Weapons = " And those who make rebuttals " 37:2 The Holy Koran
10- TV-Radio... = " And those who deliver messages " 77:5 The Holy Koran
11- Printers, newspapers = " And by those who spread " 77:3 The Holy Koran
12- Cars = " And those who run, making a roadway noise " " producers of sparks " " raiding the environment at the morning " " Stirring up thereby [clouds of] smoke " " moving thereby in the center collectively " " Indeed mankind, to his Lord, is ungrateful " " And indeed, he is to that a witness " Verses 1-7 The Holy Koran
what's more ? is there anything else you don't know yet Mr.Einstein ? I'm at your service
-
Jumping in at page 2, it goes from a discussion of how Gravimeters work to recitals of the Koran. Wow that is some serious ADHD.
Why does the weight change?
This has been asked before.
If I remember correctly it ended with FEérs denying that there are gravity variations accross the earths surface and Gravimeters are a lie.
But seriously, FEérs should think up an alternative to UA because it is
a not accepted by all FEérs
and
b very easily disproven
-
But seriously, FEérs should think up an alternative to UA because it is
a not accepted by all FEérs
Mm-hmm?
-
No Mohamed, I have never seen a helicopter, what is that?
You don't know what a helicopter is ? just open your mind Mr.Einstein :
1- Helicopters (and other machines) = " And [by] those who blow violently " Verse 5:3 The Holy Koran
2- Planes = " And [by] those who fly high " Verse 51:1 The Holy Koran
3- Submarines = " and by those who pull down [as if] drowning " 79:1 The Holy Koran
4- Boats = "And [by] those who glide [as if] swimming " 79:3 The Holy Koran
5- Speed trains = " And those who precede others in a race " 79:4 The Holy Koran
6- Buses = " And [by] those moving with ease " 51:3 The Holy Koran
7- Trucks = " And [by] those carrying a load " 51:2 The Holy Koran
8- Factories = " And [by] those apportioning [each] matter " 51:4 The Holy Koran
8- Roads and Highways = " And [by] those who bifurcates " 77:4 The Holy Koran
6- Computers = " And [by] those who arrange [each] matter "
7- electromenagers device (and other materials) = " And [by] those who remove with ease " 79:2 The Holy Koran
8- Phones = " And those who recite messages " 37:3 The Holy Koran
9- Weapons = " And those who make rebuttals " 37:2 The Holy Koran
10- TV-Radio... = " And those who deliver messages " 77:5 The Holy Koran
11- Printers, newspapers = " And by those who spread " 77:3 The Holy Koran
12- Cars = " And those who run, making a roadway noise " " producers of sparks " " raiding the environment at the morning " " Stirring up thereby [clouds of] smoke " " moving thereby in the center collectively " " Indeed mankind, to his Lord, is ungrateful " " And indeed, he is to that a witness " Verses 1-7 The Holy Koran
what's more ? is there anything else you don't know yet Mr.Einstein ? I'm at your service
The koran has zero power here, you might as well have listed citings from the Wizard of Oz to me... No wait, the Wizard of Oz was actually good.
-
But seriously, FEérs should think up an alternative to UA because it is
a not accepted by all FEérs
Mm-hmm?
;D
-
Aren't you going to add something related to topic, Charlie?
Temperature & Humidity effects inertia & resistance, hence variants in gravity acorrding to climate at location
Gravitometers are usually contained in a partial vacuum, and need to be termally controlled (they are very sensitive). So I dont think that's the case.
Well that makes sence the container that containes the partial vacuum .is not effect by the same gravitation.huh I'm afraid the old slinky test makes this gravity tester . A piece of amusing farce.
-
Well that makes sence the container that containes the partial vacuum .is not effect by the same gravitation.huh
Just realized that gravimeters disprove denpressure idea. If pressure effected weight, then gravimeters would measure the same mass all over the world. Gravimeters are calibrated to be used at the same pressure and temperature where ever they are used, when they test gravity in different areas, the only thing that is changed on the internal chamber is gravity.
-
Well that makes sence the container that containes the partial vacuum .is not effect by the same gravitation.huh
Just realized that gravimeters disprove denpressure idea. If pressure effected weight, then gravimeters would measure the same mass all over the world. Gravimeters are calibrated to be used at the same pressure and temperature where ever they are used, when they test gravity in different areas, the only thing that is changed on the internal chamber is gravity.
well that not true . You have an internal vacuum. Vessel shell & outer pressure & difficulty determining sea level at each location.
-
Aren't you going to add something related to topic, Charlie?
Temperature & Humidity effects inertia & resistance, hence variants in gravity acorrding to climate at location
Gravitometers are usually contained in a partial vacuum, and need to be termally controlled (they are very sensitive). So I dont think that's the case.
Well that makes sence the container that containes the partial vacuum .is not effect by the same gravitation.huh I'm afraid the old slinky test makes this gravity tester . A piece of amusing farce.
Im afraid I dont understand what you mean. Of course that a gravitometer IS attracted by nearby objects, including the protector shell. That is a systemic error that can be taken into account and suppresed. All devices have a systemic error, one way or the another. For example: an ideal voltmeter should have infinite resistance, so it doesnt affect the measured circuit. That, of course, is impossible, but the higher the internal resistance is, the more accurate it can be.
-
With solid state circuits especially, it is often desireable to use a low impedance voltometer in order to get rid of the bleed through current. Just saying that your blanket statement is not correct.
-
Without diverging any more from the topic. Calibration of all instruments is required to account for variations. If you did not know that you can google it, this is not the point of discussion.
The fact is Gravimeters exist and are highly accurate. But even with high end electronic scales we can measure variations in earths gravity depending on your position on earth.
This kills Universal Acceleration in its current form unless the flat earth has an infinite thickness making it impossible to tear apart along its vertical axis.
(see how nice I am by proposing solutions to your problems :) )
I tried to read the Dual Earth page for an explanation for gravity so I could figure out how it works vs UA.
But you have not created a dedicated paragraph for gravity yet other than aether did it.
So I guess you are still working on it
-
With solid state circuits especially, it is often desireable to use a low impedance voltometer in order to get rid of the bleed through current. Just saying that your blanket statement is not correct.
You missed the point. Besides, I wasnt talking about impedance, just resistance. The fact is that there are systemic errors like the one I put as an example.
-
With solid state circuits especially, it is often desireable to use a low impedance voltometer in order to get rid of the bleed through current. Just saying that your blanket statement is not correct.
You missed the point. Besides, I wasnt talking about impedance, just resistance. The fact is that there are systemic errors like the one I put as an example.
A low impedance instrument also has low resistance. Just admit that your blanket statement was not true so we can go on with the conversation.
-
I tried to read the Dual Earth page for an explanation for gravity so I could figure out how it works vs UA.
But you have not created a dedicated paragraph for gravity yet other than aether did it.
So I guess you are still working on it
And if you had read the model you would see that aether is a well-defined, simply deduced substance which explains observations of gravity, and many more things, with ease.
Is your objection solely the word 'aether,' or do you have anything substantial to say?
I didn't create a dedicated section for gravity because it's not complicated enough to merit it. The answer is there. Are you going to say what exactly is wrong with it, or just ignore?
-
I tried to read the Dual Earth page for an explanation for gravity so I could figure out how it works vs UA.
But you have not created a dedicated paragraph for gravity yet other than aether did it.
So I guess you are still working on it
And if you had read the model you would see that aether is a well-defined, simply deduced substance which explains observations of gravity, and many more things, with ease.
Is your objection solely the word 'aether,' or do you have anything substantial to say?
I didn't create a dedicated section for gravity because it's not complicated enough to merit it. The answer is there. Are you going to say what exactly is wrong with it, or just ignore?
STFU about DEF.
The question was about FE.
-
I tried to read the Dual Earth page for an explanation for gravity so I could figure out how it works vs UA.
But you have not created a dedicated paragraph for gravity yet other than aether did it.
So I guess you are still working on it
And if you had read the model you would see that aether is a well-defined, simply deduced substance which explains observations of gravity, and many more things, with ease.
Is your objection solely the word 'aether,' or do you have anything substantial to say?
I didn't create a dedicated section for gravity because it's not complicated enough to merit it. The answer is there. Are you going to say what exactly is wrong with it, or just ignore?
STFU about DEF.
The question was about FE.
Dual Earth Theory is an FE model. You do not get to ignore it simply because your stock arguments don't work.
-
I tried to read the Dual Earth page for an explanation for gravity so I could figure out how it works vs UA.
But you have not created a dedicated paragraph for gravity yet other than aether did it.
So I guess you are still working on it
And if you had read the model you would see that aether is a well-defined, simply deduced substance which explains observations of gravity, and many more things, with ease.
Is your objection solely the word 'aether,' or do you have anything substantial to say?
I didn't create a dedicated section for gravity because it's not complicated enough to merit it. The answer is there. Are you going to say what exactly is wrong with it, or just ignore?
STFU about DEF.
The question was about FE.
Dual Earth Theory is an FE model. You do not get to ignore it simply because your stock arguments don't work.
Incorrect, a flat earth fantasy perhaps? Still most FES wont accept your religion.
-
I tried to read the Dual Earth page for an explanation for gravity so I could figure out how it works vs UA.
But you have not created a dedicated paragraph for gravity yet other than aether did it.
So I guess you are still working on it
And if you had read the model you would see that aether is a well-defined, simply deduced substance which explains observations of gravity, and many more things, with ease.
Is your objection solely the word 'aether,' or do you have anything substantial to say?
I didn't create a dedicated section for gravity because it's not complicated enough to merit it. The answer is there. Are you going to say what exactly is wrong with it, or just ignore?
STFU about DEF.
The question was about FE.
Dual Earth Theory is an FE model. You do not get to ignore it simply because your stock arguments don't work.
Incorrect, a flat earth fantasy perhaps? Still most FES wont accept your religion.
What FEers? I've counted one active user who isn't a troll. Possibly two: and both of them are next to never here. (And the former did express interest in hearing DET).
-
With solid state circuits especially, it is often desireable to use a low impedance voltometer in order to get rid of the bleed through current. Just saying that your blanket statement is not correct.
You missed the point. Besides, I wasnt talking about impedance, just resistance. The fact is that there are systemic errors like the one I put as an example.
A low impedance instrument also has low resistance. Just admit that your blanket statement was not true so we can go on with the conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimeter#Sensitivity_and_input_impedance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimeter#Sensitivity_and_input_impedance)
woops.
Seriously though, JRowe. Please compile your hypothesis and ideas somewhere easy to access. A forum is a terrible place for that.
-
Seriously though, JRowe. Please compile your hypothesis and ideas somewhere easy to access. A forum is a terrible place for that.
It is perfectly easy to access: the ideas linked to are clear, and in a section with an FAQ I can update. Plus there are subforums to aid discussion, rather than derailing multiple threads: and it's open to people even without accounts.
It's the only thing I can see that even comes close to being what's needed.
-
With solid state circuits especially, it is often desireable to use a low impedance voltometer in order to get rid of the bleed through current. Just saying that your blanket statement is not correct.
You missed the point. Besides, I wasnt talking about impedance, just resistance. The fact is that there are systemic errors like the one I put as an example.
A low impedance instrument also has low resistance. Just admit that your blanket statement was not true so we can go on with the conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimeter#Sensitivity_and_input_impedance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimeter#Sensitivity_and_input_impedance)
woops.
Seriously though, JRowe. Please compile your hypothesis and ideas somewhere easy to access. A forum is a terrible place for that.
::)
Verification of a voltage reading is performed using a low-impedance voltmeter, which usually has a shunt resistor load bridging the voltmeter terminals. Since very little current can flow from a coupled surface through the small shunt or meter resistance, capacitively coupled voltages will collapse to zero, indicating a harmless "false alarm".
-
And if you had read the model you would see that aether is a well-defined, simply deduced substance which explains observations of gravity, and many more things, with ease.
Is your objection solely the word 'aether,' or do you have anything substantial to say?
I didn't create a dedicated section for gravity because it's not complicated enough to merit it. The answer is there. Are you going to say what exactly is wrong with it, or just ignore?
Honestly still thought you where busy with it because of the lack of a dedicated section.
You just say that Aether pushes everything down, and does so more in the center than the edges.
This is less described than classical physics's version of gravity. Although it solves the AU issue of varying gravity across earths surface it raises other problems, half of them concerning the properties of aether.
Jroa I see you have now completely given up on the topic of gravity, and seem to be discussing the properties of electricity. Would it not be best to start a thread for that to keep this one on topic?
-
JRoweSkeptic I am now a total of 10% of the viewers of your Forum.
To say nothing else . . it needs work
-
And if you had read the model you would see that aether is a well-defined, simply deduced substance which explains observations of gravity, and many more things, with ease.
Is your objection solely the word 'aether,' or do you have anything substantial to say?
I didn't create a dedicated section for gravity because it's not complicated enough to merit it. The answer is there. Are you going to say what exactly is wrong with it, or just ignore?
Honestly still thought you where busy with it because of the lack of a dedicated section.
You just say that Aether pushes everything down, and does so more in the center than the edges.
This is less described than classical physics's version of gravity. Although it solves the AU issue of varying gravity across earths surface it raises other problems, half of them concerning the properties of aether.
The properties of aether are given and clearly defined. The reason why aether flows, the reason why the concentration varies with altitude and distance from the poles, are all clearly stated and follow from the simple definition. This is well-described: every part of it makes sense, and follows from logic. Where exactly do you imagine the gaps are? Please don't ignore the modle in your answer.
JRoweSkeptic I am now a total of 10% of the viewers of your Forum.
To say nothing else . . it needs work
Are you going to elaborate on anything you say?
-
Are you going to elaborate on anything you say?
I was being specifically vague because I dont know where to start.
I am not sure I want to go into discussion about DEH with you because I dont see a constructive outcome.
I would prefer to discuss things around your theory and provide encouragement to how you can further your ideas and make them more clear to others.
For you own aid. It would help if you improved nothing but your writing style.
This is not a insult at all, I struggled when I had to write my first masters thesis paper too.
It is not an easy thing to write a technical document in a clear and understandable way.
I would suggest you find a few science papers and read them, just to understand what I mean.
-
Are you going to elaborate on anything you say?
I was being specifically vague because I dont know where to start.
I am not sure I want to go into discussion about DEH with you because I dont see a constructive outcome.
I would prefer to discuss things around your theory and provide encouragement to how you can further your ideas and make them more clear to others.
For you own aid. It would help if you improved nothing but your writing style.
This is not a insult at all, I struggled when I had to write my first masters thesis paper too.
It is not an easy thing to write a technical document in a clear and understandable way.
I would suggest you find a few science papers and read them, just to understand what I mean.
I've read, and written, several. However, all technical papers need to be read slowly: they can't simply be skimmed. No amount of rewriting or changing my writing style could alter that.
-
I will respond to parts of your Theory on one of the DET threads. But this thread is being derailed by us, although I think derailing started when it became about voltmeters or something
-
Dual Earth Theory is an FE model. You do not get to ignore it simply because your stock arguments don't work.
hey I can ignore what ever I WANT TO PAL!