The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 10:04:09 AM

Title: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 10:04:09 AM
See subject.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 12, 2016, 11:40:42 AM
See subject.
I don't think any round earther accept the accelerating universe flat earth model? It doesn't really make sense.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2016, 11:49:03 AM
See subject.
They don't, it's a strawman.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Copper Knickers on October 12, 2016, 01:40:44 PM
My (admittedly limited) understanding of the UA of earth is that it is based on the earth being flat. So the earth being a globe makes it a non-starter.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I mean the FE UA vs the Universal acceleration of the universe in RE.

One of these is insignificant in comparison to the other, yet RE'ers are unable to comprehend the insignificant of the two while asserting the fantastic.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 02:09:14 PM
I mean the FE UA vs the Universal acceleration of the universe in RE.

One of these is insignificant in comparison to the other, yet RE'ers are unable to comprehend the insignificant of the two while asserting the fantastic.

They are completely unrelated concepts. If you have evidence against the expansion of the universe, feel free to present it. If you have a theory that better explains the general redshift of light, feel free to present it.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 02:11:30 PM
RE has no testable theory to explain the acceleration of the universe, let alone any evidence towards those non-existent theories. FE on the otherhand has a solid, evidence based explanation for the UA that accelerates the earth.

Case closed.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 02:20:17 PM
RE has no testable theory to explain the acceleration of the universe, let alone any evidence towards those non-existent theories.

Expansion of the universe is the predominant theory that explains the redshifting of light from far away objects. It's not exactly an easy thing to test, and I don't think anyone takes it as 100% fact. Again, if you have a better theory, let's hear it. However, whether the universe is actually expanding or not has nothing to do with whether the earth is flat, nor does it have anything to do with UA.

Quote
FE on the otherhand has a solid, evidence based explanation for the UA that accelerates the earth.

Where is all this evidence you speak of?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
Please do not respond to resolved threads. Further reading can be found using the search utility.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 02:39:29 PM
Please do not respond to resolved threads. Further reading can be found using the search utility.

Thanks!

This comment is quite well designed. Well done. The combination of dismissiveness and pseudo-officialness is sure to royally rankle the undergarments of anyone with an opposing viewpoint trying to take take this thread seriously. Honestly though, I used this technique WAY too often in my adolescent years for it to bother me much now.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 07:16:28 PM
Please do not respond to resolved threads. Further reading can be found using the search utility.

Thanks!
Resolved thread? You started it, and now deem it closed...then why post it to begin with? You don't want discussion, you tell people to search. That's just....stupid.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 12, 2016, 07:18:10 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 07:23:29 PM
How exactly is a rainbow made?

How exactly does the sunset?

How exactly does the posi-trac on Plymouth rear end work?

It just does.
It just does!
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 07:33:54 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 09:05:34 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 09:34:10 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 09:38:21 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that you wouldn't move along with the earth. I am saying you would feel weightless. In your example, that would be the equivalent of "not feeling the wind". You would feel no force pushing you down.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 12, 2016, 09:55:15 PM
I mean the FE UA vs the Universal acceleration of the universe in RE.

One of these is insignificant in comparison to the other, yet RE'ers are unable to comprehend the insignificant of the two while asserting the fantastic.
Oh, I think you misunderstood something very very wrong.
There is absolutely none (well, with about as much certainty as possible) universal acceleration of the universe in the round earth model. However, I think you might have heard of the expansion of the universe, and that the expansion rate is accelerating, according to measurements of redshifted light. Those two are obviously very different statements.

And anyways, I can't see how the expansion of the universe has anything to do with the shape of the earth, so a round earther can (and some round earth scientists actually exists) believe that the universe is not expanding, and it would have absolutely no impact on the science of the earth.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 10:08:53 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that you wouldn't move along with the earth. I am saying you would feel weightless. In your example, that would be the equivalent of "not feeling the wind". You would feel no force pushing you down.

The UA is pushing against the bottom of the Earth and the accelerating Earth is pushing against you.  You should look up Einstein's Equivalence Principle.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 10:12:27 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that you wouldn't move along with the earth. I am saying you would feel weightless. In your example, that would be the equivalent of "not feeling the wind". You would feel no force pushing you down.

The UA is pushing against the bottom of the Earth and the accelerating Earth is pushing against you.  You should look up Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Yes, that is the general understanding of UA. I am aware of the equivalence principle. But you said that everything is accelerated equally, in which case the earth would not be pushing against you.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 12, 2016, 10:18:04 PM
You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 10:34:42 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that you wouldn't move along with the earth. I am saying you would feel weightless. In your example, that would be the equivalent of "not feeling the wind". You would feel no force pushing you down.

The UA is pushing against the bottom of the Earth and the accelerating Earth is pushing against you.  You should look up Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Yes, that is the general understanding of UA. I am aware of the equivalence principle. But you said that everything is accelerated equally, in which case the earth would not be pushing against you.

I also said the observable universe.  I suppose I should have clarified that things that appear to be falling are not accelerating, but I thought you would be able to figure that out for yourself. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 10:54:04 PM
I also said the observable universe.  I suppose I should have clarified that things that appear to be falling are not accelerating, but I thought you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Sokarul: "Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?"
jroa: "It accelerates everything equally in the known universe."

Yes, normally I would assume that things that appear to be falling are exempt. But given the context of your original answer to Sokarul, it seemed like you were specifically saying that nothing is exempt. If that ISN'T what you are saying, that's fine. But that brings us back to Sokarul's original question: "Why are some things exempt from UA?"
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 11:03:09 PM
I also said the observable universe.  I suppose I should have clarified that things that appear to be falling are not accelerating, but I thought you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Sokarul: "Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?"
jroa: "It accelerates everything equally in the known universe."

Yes, normally I would assume that things that appear to be falling are exempt. But given the context of your original answer to Sokarul, it seemed like you were specifically saying that nothing is exempt. If that ISN'T what you are saying, that's fine. But that brings us back to Sokarul's original question: "Why are some things exempt from UA?"

When I said everything, I meant everything that does not appear to be falling.  You are not exempt unless you are falling.  Somethings, such as the Earth and celestial bodies, are directly affected by the Universal Accelerator.  Other things, such as you and me and everything else on Earth are indirectly affected.  But, ultimately, the UA affects everything. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 12, 2016, 11:05:23 PM
You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 11:17:37 PM
I also said the observable universe.  I suppose I should have clarified that things that appear to be falling are not accelerating, but I thought you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Sokarul: "Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?"
jroa: "It accelerates everything equally in the known universe."

Yes, normally I would assume that things that appear to be falling are exempt. But given the context of your original answer to Sokarul, it seemed like you were specifically saying that nothing is exempt. If that ISN'T what you are saying, that's fine. But that brings us back to Sokarul's original question: "Why are some things exempt from UA?"

When I said everything, I meant everything that does not appear to be falling.  You are not exempt unless you are falling.  Somethings, such as the Earth and celestial bodies, are directly affected by the Universal Accelerator.  Other things, such as you and me and everything else on Earth are indirectly affected.  But, ultimately, the UA affects everything.

Good grief. Yes, I gathered that. Which brings us back to Sokural's original question: why are some things, such as you and me, exempt from UA?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 12, 2016, 11:19:55 PM
I don't know why I even asked, I knew the old ad hoc answer if theirs. I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 12, 2016, 11:22:15 PM
You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 11:23:37 PM
I also said the observable universe.  I suppose I should have clarified that things that appear to be falling are not accelerating, but I thought you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Sokarul: "Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?"
jroa: "It accelerates everything equally in the known universe."

Yes, normally I would assume that things that appear to be falling are exempt. But given the context of your original answer to Sokarul, it seemed like you were specifically saying that nothing is exempt. If that ISN'T what you are saying, that's fine. But that brings us back to Sokarul's original question: "Why are some things exempt from UA?"

When I said everything, I meant everything that does not appear to be falling.  You are not exempt unless you are falling.  Somethings, such as the Earth and celestial bodies, are directly affected by the Universal Accelerator.  Other things, such as you and me and everything else on Earth are indirectly affected.  But, ultimately, the UA affects everything.

Good grief. Yes, I gathered that. Which brings us back to Sokural's original question: why are some things, such as you and me, exempt from UA?

I already explained to you that if there is a sail between you and the wind, you won't feel the wind, but you can still travel with the ship.  I am not sure what you are having so much trouble understanding.  This really is a basic concept, but you treat the question as if it is rocket science.  Do I need to draw you a picture? 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 12, 2016, 11:31:55 PM
You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.
But are they not above the earth?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 11:42:00 PM
I also said the observable universe.  I suppose I should have clarified that things that appear to be falling are not accelerating, but I thought you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Sokarul: "Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?"
jroa: "It accelerates everything equally in the known universe."

Yes, normally I would assume that things that appear to be falling are exempt. But given the context of your original answer to Sokarul, it seemed like you were specifically saying that nothing is exempt. If that ISN'T what you are saying, that's fine. But that brings us back to Sokarul's original question: "Why are some things exempt from UA?"

When I said everything, I meant everything that does not appear to be falling.  You are not exempt unless you are falling.  Somethings, such as the Earth and celestial bodies, are directly affected by the Universal Accelerator.  Other things, such as you and me and everything else on Earth are indirectly affected.  But, ultimately, the UA affects everything.

Good grief. Yes, I gathered that. Which brings us back to Sokural's original question: why are some things, such as you and me, exempt from UA?

I already explained to you that if there is a sail between you and the wind, you won't feel the wind, but you can still travel with the ship.  I am not sure what you are having so much trouble understanding.  This really is a basic concept, but you treat the question as if it is rocket science.  Do I need to draw you a picture?

My apologies, I misunderstood your analogy at first. In my defense, you didn't explain yourself very clearly.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 12:00:53 AM
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.
But are they not above the earth?
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 12:14:45 AM
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.
But are they not above the earth?
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.

Perhaps the separation bubble isn't perfect? Perhaps there is some turbulent spillage of whatever is causing UA over the edge of the earth. This would result in small variations in the strength of gravity on the surface. I dub this Totes' SuperCoolTheory. You may use this theory to replace celestial gravitation, but you MUST keep the name. You are welcome.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 13, 2016, 12:27:30 AM
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.
So you DO have an idea of how the accelerator works? Why didn't you say that in the other thread, when I asked you?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 12:29:29 AM
I had considered it briefly a few years ago, but rejected it as the turbulence of that nature would, by definition, not be stable. But I am sure there is room in FET for a TSCT of some nature. Haha
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 13, 2016, 12:51:45 AM
So, I assume the flow is accelerating as well. This would actually explain orbits (somewhat, still a lot of problems if you accept the existence of satellites) as well. The earth blocks the accelerating flow, and around the edges the pressure would force the flow to speed up temporarily. After having passed the edges, the flow now expands inwards. The force vector would be such that it accelerates objects at the normal accelerator acceleration in the upwards direction, but also accelerate them inwards. So for an object like the sun or the moon that moves, the inwards acceleration will cause them to move in a circle.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 13, 2016, 01:07:48 AM
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

If they were pushed by a physical force that stops at the surface, yes.
If they are moved by a gravitational field, no.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 13, 2016, 03:30:54 AM
See subject.
What does  "UA of the universe" have to do with the shape of the earth?

The Globe was the accepted shape for over 2,400 years before there was any thought of an expanding universe.

So think again.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 08:07:27 AM
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.
So you DO have an idea of how the accelerator works? Why didn't you say that in the other thread, when I asked you?
There are several dozen active threads on any given day. I really don't get to read them all. I try with what time I have. Sometimes its more and sometimes it's less. Or sometimes,  like this afternoon I read one of TR's posts and wanted to respond, but wasn't going to be able to in the couple minutes I had available so ignored it for later. Sometimes I forget when I return to the forum and it doesn't show "new". Sometimes I just get exasperated explaining something for the n-billionth time. Sometimes I just ignore a certain poster for awhile because it seems like a waste of time because they are being obtuse or belligerent.  There are a lot of reasons I might not have responded to a particular post, sorry.
I'm not paid to tutor flat earth theory in my free time. Perhaps I'll set up a paypal plan for you ;) Timely answers guaranteed haha
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 08:10:23 AM
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

If they were pushed by a physical force that stops at the surface, yes.
If they are moved by a gravitational field, no.
Why?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 13, 2016, 09:10:53 AM
There are several dozen active threads on any given day. I really don't get to read them all. I try with what time I have. Sometimes its more and sometimes it's less. Or sometimes,  like this afternoon I read one of TR's posts and wanted to respond, but wasn't going to be able to in the couple minutes I had available so ignored it for later. Sometimes I forget when I return to the forum and it doesn't show "new". Sometimes I just get exasperated explaining something for the n-billionth time. Sometimes I just ignore a certain poster for awhile because it seems like a waste of time because they are being obtuse or belligerent.  There are a lot of reasons I might not have responded to a particular post, sorry.
I'm not paid to tutor flat earth theory in my free time. Perhaps I'll set up a paypal plan for you ;) Timely answers guaranteed haha
You did answer. But you just wrote "some exotic mechanism", and then you got strangely obsessed with dark matter.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: RocksEverywhere on October 13, 2016, 11:20:08 AM
Assuming this acceleration theory is correct, then we would either expect a constant acceleration and direction of acceleration all over the earth. This, however, is not what we observe.

Go read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 11:56:29 AM
I had considered it briefly a few years ago, but rejected it as the turbulence of that nature would, by definition, not be stable. But I am sure there is room in FET for a TSCT of some nature. Haha

Drat. RIP sweet brainchild. It's for the best, honestly. Next time I'll make sure the acronym is more catchy. I'm thinking "Totes' Overly Orchestrated Theory".

Assuming this acceleration theory is correct, then we would either expect a constant acceleration and direction of acceleration all over the earth.

I'll go ahead and save some flat earther the trouble. Usually, some form of weakened Newtonian-style gravitation coming from either the land or celestial objects ("Celestial Gravitation") is posited that causes the variations that we see.

Next, you will say something like "doesn't that explanation seem a bit ad-hoc?", to which Ski will respond with "dark matter", after which a long argument will occur regarding the merits of dark matter as a theory and during which Ski will use the word "Orthodoxy" alot. Here is my general response to it the whole thing. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67515.msg1814397#msg1814397) Hope that helped. :)
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: RocksEverywhere on October 13, 2016, 12:14:31 PM
Doesn't the presence of any kind of gravitation exerting force on the earth, mess up the whole idea of flat earth?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 12:33:41 PM
Doesn't the presence of any kind of gravitation exerting force on the earth, mess up the whole idea of flat earth?

Eh, not really. The original reason to avoid gravity is because

A) It tends to pull stuff into the shape of a sphere.
B) The direction of gravity wouldn't make sense on a non-infinite flat earth.

If you rely on mass-based gravity merely to explain the small variations, these become less of an issue. It's a super weak theory and would get shredded to ribbons by Occam's razor, but it is vaguely plausible. Sort of. And let's be honest, "vaguely plausible" is a mark of distinction among most flat earth theories.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: RocksEverywhere on October 13, 2016, 01:03:28 PM
Well Occam's razor is by no means a scientific method. Anyway isn't A) and B) exactly what's going on if you need another force, besides the acceleration, to explain the observations?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 01:27:45 PM
Well Occam's razor is by no means a scientific method. Anyway isn't A) and B) exactly what's going on if you need another force, besides the acceleration, to explain the observations?

As long as the mass of the earth extends outward a decent way beyond what man can reach, and as long as UA is an order of magnitude stronger than mass-based gravitation, then I don't think the direction of gravity would be much of an issue.

Of course, isn't possible to map the density of the earth below ground based on local variations in gravity? That would kind of kill this whole idea.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: RocksEverywhere on October 13, 2016, 01:38:37 PM
Do you mean something like this?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Geoids_sm.jpg)
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 01:56:39 PM
Do you mean something like this?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Geoids_sm.jpg)

No, that's just a straightforward map of the gravitational variations. (I assume)

The kicker would be if you can draw accurate conclusions about below ground density based on those variations.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 04:04:13 PM
As long as the mass of the earth extends outward a decent way beyond what man can reach, and as long as UA is an order of magnitude stronger than mass-based gravitation, then I don't think the direction of gravity would be much of an issue.
I think the breadth should not much matter as long as the cross section is more or less homogeneous.  The depth,  however, of the CoM needs to be sufficiently deep to make any horizontal component insignificant enough to be lost in the noise.

Quote
Of course, isn't possible to map the density of the earth below ground based on local variations in gravity? That would kind of kill this whole idea.
To what depth and how reliably? I've frequently seen it posted that gravimetry is used in gas exploration, but having spoken to an operator, the results seem to be of varied consistency. The difficulty is in separating the (alleged) variations attributed to gas/oil deposits from the kinetic accelerations experienced in flight.
My understanding is that the surveys are used solely to select potential sites for more reliable seismic surveys and tests. The person I spoke to was unaware of any sites that were drilled solely on gravimetric data. That doesn't mean one does not exist, just that he was unaware of one. He also admitted that seismic data sometimes falsifies gravimetric data.  Or I suppose arguably falsifies the inferences of the data. He maintained the service was useful to downselect potential sites for more thorough surveying (though I'd expect an employee to say that!). Now he was just a pilot and not a proper boffin or pilot/boffin, but I have no reason to believe he was unfamiliar with the field.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 04:26:01 PM
As long as the mass of the earth extends outward a decent way beyond what man can reach, and as long as UA is an order of magnitude stronger than mass-based gravitation, then I don't think the direction of gravity would be much of an issue.
I think the breadth should not much matter as long as the cross section is more or less homogeneous.  The depth,  however, of the CoM needs to be sufficiently deep to make any horizontal component insignificant enough to be lost in the noise.

Common misconception: gravity always points towards the center of mass. It doesn't. For a sphere it does. However, for an earth with a depth much greater than it's breadth, gravity along the surface would point towards some point between the center of mass and the top edge. I can show you the math if you want.

So yeah, the breadth needs to be significantly greater than what we can explore if we want to avoid sideways pointing gravity.

Quote
Quote
Of course, isn't possible to map the density of the earth below ground based on local variations in gravity? That would kind of kill this whole idea.
To what depth and how reliably? I've frequently seen it posted that gravimetry is used in gas exploration, but having spoken to an operator, the results seem to be of varied consistency. The difficulty is in separating the (alleged) variations attributed to gas/oil deposits from the kinetic accelerations experienced in flight.
My understanding is that the surveys are used solely to select potential sites for more reliable seismic surveys and tests. The person I spoke to was unaware of any sites that were drilled solely on gravimetric data. That doesn't mean one does not exist, just that he was unaware of one. He also admitted that seismic data sometimes falsifies gravimetric data.  Or I suppose arguably falsifies the inferences of the data. He maintained the service was useful to downselect potential sites for more thorough surveying (though I'd expect an employee to say that!). Now he was just a pilot and not a proper boffin or pilot/boffin, but I have no reason to believe he was unfamiliar with the field.

No argument here. My source comes from the theoretical side of things, so I have no idea how accurate the implementation is.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 05:09:54 PM
Again, it may well be that someone has spudded a well based on gravimetry, I am just unaware of one and so was the single person I talked to. I'm welcome to evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to the contrary.

Re: CoM, with a width much greater than depth, would we not observe an ever decreasing vertical acceleration and increasing (proportionate) horizontal vector farther from the center of a homgeneous disc? I think depth relative to known surface is the key variable to be determined.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 13, 2016, 05:55:32 PM
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

If they were pushed by a physical force that stops at the surface, yes.
If they are moved by a gravitational field, no.
Why?
Don't play dumb. I thought you were better than that.
If solids can stop the UA it's not a field. The unbalanced force on a soft object will lead to deformations.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 13, 2016, 06:29:51 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You explicitly claimed "It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe",

Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely "eveything equally in the known universe" includes the "things on the earth".

And if these things "on the earth" are shielded, how high does this shielding go.

Polaris is not that far above the earth (3,000, 4,000 who knows) and is around 12,400 miles from the "edge" (but where is the edge?), so how is it shielded by the earth.

Seems all a bit hit and miss as to what gets "shielded" especially as no-one has any idea what sort of a force could push on the earth and push on the objects above the earth, providing exactly the same acceleration (not force) to each.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 06:39:15 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You explicitly claimed "It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe",

Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely "eveything equally in the known universe" includes the "things on the earth".

And if these things "on the earth" are shielded, how high does this shielding go.

Polaris is not that far above the earth (3,000, 4,000 who knows) and is around 12,400 miles from the "edge" (but where is the edge?), so how is it shielded by the earth.

Seems all a bit hit and miss as to what gets "shielded" especially as no-one has any idea what sort of a force could push on the earth and push on the objects above the earth, providing exactly the same acceleration (not force) to each.

I know you have a hard time understanding a lot of things about physics.  Probably the same for big words, like "leeward side."  Perhaps you should simply leave the scientific discussions to the grownups and go play in the lower fora?  We will let you know when dinner is ready.   :D
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 13, 2016, 06:54:56 PM
You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.

Why and how?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 13, 2016, 07:38:44 PM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You explicitly claimed "It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe",

Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely "eveything equally in the known universe" includes the "things on the earth".

And if these things "on the earth" are shielded, how high does this shielding go.

Polaris is not that far above the earth (3,000, 4,000 who knows) and is around 12,400 miles from the "edge" (but where is the edge?), so how is it shielded by the earth.

Seems all a bit hit and miss as to what gets "shielded" especially as no-one has any idea what sort of a force could push on the earth and push on the objects above the earth, providing exactly the same acceleration (not force) to each.

I know you have a hard time understanding a lot of things about physics.  Probably the same for big words, like "leeward side."  Perhaps you should simply leave the scientific discussions to the grownups and go play in the lower fora?  We will let you know when dinner is ready.   :D
Strange, you ran away from my question.

Why doesn't the UA deform soft objects?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 08:16:03 PM
Strange, you ran away from my question.

Why doesn't the UA deform soft objects?

You already received an answer in the form of a question that you apparently ignored. 

Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 08:26:07 PM
Don't play dumb. I thought you were better than that.
If solids can stop the UA it's not a field. The unbalanced force on a soft object will lead to deformations.

Solids "stop" fields all the time.  More properly they redirect fields and significantly weaken them, I suppose we should say.

Further, "soft" objects like stars accelerated by Orthodox "dark energy", are they not? Are they deformed by such?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 13, 2016, 08:35:00 PM
Strange, you ran away from my question.

Why doesn't the UA deform soft objects?

You already received an answer in the form of a question that you apparently ignored. 

Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?
Yes and then I answered.

It's ok, ski will do all the work. You can go play in the lowers.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 13, 2016, 08:42:09 PM
Don't play dumb. I thought you were better than that.
If solids can stop the UA it's not a field. The unbalanced force on a soft object will lead to deformations.

Solids "stop" fields all the time.  More properly they redirect fields and significantly weaken them, I suppose we should say.
Maybe some. Gravitation, not so much.
Quote
Further, "soft" objects like stars accelerated by Orthodox "dark energy", are they not? Are they deformed by such?
Who says dark energy is providing a force?
Now enough miss directing. How does the UA not deform the sun? You claim the earth can stop the UA. So it most not pass through solids. So any soft object will experience unbalanced forces resulting in deformation, like when you throw a water balloon. But this isn't seen in the sun.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 08:48:53 PM
I'm sorry, so is dark energy a field? Is it distorting things? What is the mechanism for acceleration?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 13, 2016, 08:54:10 PM
I'm not a theoretical physicist. Ask them. Wikipedia says dark energy may be a type of field. And space itself my be expanding.

Now I believe you have a question to answer.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 13, 2016, 09:45:44 PM
I'm sorry, so is dark energy a field? Is it distorting things? What is the mechanism for acceleration?
Again, this is ridiculously off-topic, as it has absolutely no single connection to the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 13, 2016, 10:02:49 PM
 It may be a type of field.

Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 13, 2016, 10:29:22 PM
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.

A "separation bubble" would seem as if it had to be in some medium outside "our universe". So presumably this medium is not moving with "our universe"?

Now elsewhere jroa was saying being a Zetetic he would not hypothesise on matters we could not observe, yet here you are postulating that there is some medium having a "separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate".

Seems highly non Zetetic to me, pure guesswork in fact.

But back to the OP ,the heliocentric Globe does not depend on dark matter or dark energy, but UA seems to fall pretty flat[1] without your dark energy.

Whether dark matter is present or not would not affect things within the solar system by a measurable amount.


[1] Sorry, no pun intended.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: RocksEverywhere on October 14, 2016, 03:08:09 AM
Do you mean something like this?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Geoids_sm.jpg)

No, that's just a straightforward map of the gravitational variations. (I assume)

The kicker would be if you can draw accurate conclusions about below ground density based on those variations.
This has been done.

(http://www.scielo.org.mx/img/revistas/geoint/v49n4/a8f11.jpg)
Source: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0016-71692010000400008

(http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v42n3/art02-figure04.jpg)
(http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v42n3/art02-figure05.jpg)
Source: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-71062015000300002
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 14, 2016, 03:50:09 AM
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You explicitly claimed "It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe",

Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely "eveything equally in the known universe" includes the "things on the earth".

And if these things "on the earth" are shielded, how high does this shielding go.

Polaris is not that far above the earth (3,000, 4,000 who knows) and is around 12,400 miles from the "edge" (but where is the edge?), so how is it shielded by the earth.

Seems all a bit hit and miss as to what gets "shielded" especially as no-one has any idea what sort of a force could push on the earth and push on the objects above the earth, providing exactly the same acceleration (not force) to each.

I know you have a hard time understanding a lot of things about physics.  Probably the same for big words, like "leeward side."  Perhaps you should simply leave the scientific discussions to the grownups and go play in the lower fora?  We will let you know when dinner is ready.   :D

As I  said before it you asserted that "It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe."

And, yes I obviously know what leeward (and, port, starboard etc) mean otherwise I would hardly have said that "Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely 'eveything equally in the known universe' includes the 'things on the earth'."

I am trying to find out why  eveything equally in the known universe somehow excludes these things "shielded" by your "sail".

To me everything equally in the known universe means everything equally in the known universe.

And, yes I understand physics quite well, even a few bits of optics.

To put it bluntly, you have no idea what you are talking about with this guess about what gets "shielded" from this mysterious "force".

Somehow you are postulating a "force" which has to be proportional to the mass of the objects acted on, otherwise they would not be accelerated by the same amount. It is almost like a version of "anti-gravity" (your dark force pushes, gravitation pushes).
But to the best of our knowledge nothing can be shielded from gravitation.

Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 14, 2016, 01:21:28 PM
Do you mean something like this?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Geoids_sm.jpg)

No, that's just a straightforward map of the gravitational variations. (I assume)

The kicker would be if you can draw accurate conclusions about below ground density based on those variations.
This has been done.

(http://www.scielo.org.mx/img/revistas/geoint/v49n4/a8f11.jpg)
Source: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0016-71692010000400008

(http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v42n3/art02-figure04.jpg)
(http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v42n3/art02-figure05.jpg)
Source: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-71062015000300002

There's the kicker.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 14, 2016, 07:35:44 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: johnnyorbital on October 15, 2016, 10:21:56 AM
RE has no testable theory to explain the acceleration of the universe, let alone any evidence towards those non-existent theories. FE on the otherhand has a solid, evidence based explanation for the UA that accelerates the earth.

Case closed.

this gave me the biggest laugh since joining this site

what an absolute nob narcberry is!

All this 'knowledge' but he doesn't understand the word 'debate'? awesome


EDIT - solid, evidence based explanation for the UA? PAHAHAHAHAAA!

there's not even flaky evidence for ANY of the flat earth theory!

quick question narcberry, if the evidence is so 'solid' and has 'evidence', why can so many FE's (not to mention RE's) disprove you?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 15, 2016, 01:14:17 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Meh. Yes, I'd expect it to be deformed under this explanation of UA, but I couldn't say for sure considering we don't even know what the flat earth sun is made of. Which brings us to another problem... what could the sun possibly be made of to allow it to burn for so long in the absence of traditional gravity, and despite it's small size? Cue another "dark matter" explanation to add to the pile...
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: RocksEverywhere on October 15, 2016, 01:41:44 PM
Nah we're gonna need a whole lot of light matter for that.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 15, 2016, 02:22:27 PM
touché
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 15, 2016, 02:36:37 PM
Phlogiston. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 15, 2016, 04:28:16 PM
Phlogiston.
;) Is that your latest guess as to the energy source of UA?  ;)
Sounds as plausible as any.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 15, 2016, 05:49:31 PM
Quote from: RocksEverywhere link=topic=68209.msg1830460#msg1830460
This has been done.

(http://www.scielo.org.mx/img/revistas/geoint/v49n4/a8f11.jpg)


I'm lazy preoccupied (okay, both) at the moment, so I have not read the study, but was this conclusion verified by core samples because the depth of the cross section seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have verified the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 15, 2016, 05:52:39 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 15, 2016, 05:53:21 PM
Nah we're gonna need a whole lot of light matter for that.

Ha!  :D
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 15, 2016, 07:23:13 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 15, 2016, 08:09:35 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: markjo on October 15, 2016, 08:29:46 PM
Phlogiston.
Gesundheit.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 15, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.

Acceleration through what medium, surely even the existence of a medium is based solely on inferential evidence let alone any properties of it.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: markjo on October 15, 2016, 08:37:41 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.
I'm not sure if you understand how bowshocks work.  For one thing, a bowshock would indicate that the FE is traveling through some sort of medium.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 15, 2016, 08:46:50 PM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.

Acceleration through what medium, surely even the existence of a medium is based solely on inferential evidence let alone any properties of it.
Some sort of stellar wind according to the Orthodox's brightest
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 12:07:03 AM
Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.

Acceleration through what medium, surely even the existence of a medium is based solely on inferential evidence let alone any properties of it.
Some sort of stellar wind according to the Orthodox's brightest

Please explain "according to the Orthodox's brightest".
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Globetrotter on October 16, 2016, 04:13:55 AM
Anyway, who invented / discovered this notion of accelerating flat earth? What is the story behind that? Some references?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 02:20:02 PM
Einstein.  Next question. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 02:37:01 PM
Anyway, who invented / discovered this notion of accelerating flat earth? What is the story behind that? Some references?

I have not found the answer to that yet, so I don't know whether or not it was Rowbotham, but who needs universal acceleration or gravity when you have this sort of thing?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: M Knight
"The rate at which objects rise or fall depends on the resistance (or lack thereof) in the medium surrounding." ~ E. Dubay
Examples:
The submarine can use compressed air to ascend in water.
The hot-air-balloon can use hot air to ascend in the atmosflat.
The airplane can use pressure difference across its flying surfaces to gain lift.

There is no pulling. Only falling and rising. No force pulls down.

The theory of gravity was debunked by General Relativity. The theory of general relativity was debunked by Flat Earth.

What people think as Gravity could be seen as the electromagnetic attractive force that a dense mass of charged particles emits out on other electromagnetically charged masses of particle dense objects.
"Gravity is electromagnetism on a Flat Earth.  Density will increase electromagnetism.    So will heat.. pressure.. and friction.. Static interaction.. Sound..." - Thomas Jason Hannsz

Did you know when gravity was made up, electricity hadn't even been invented?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
All from waykiwayki, Flat Earth: Gravity is a Hoax (http://www.waykiwayki.com/2015/07/flat-earth-gravity-is-hoax.html) and it looks like "Wicky wacky" thinks UA is a hoax too!  ::) ::)

Mind you the same page has references to
;D ;D "* Frequency Healing * FE Illuminated Keyring * Micro Organite * Mini Black Tormaline *"  ;D ;D

After reading that I still have no idea if the author thinks "gravity" is caused by, what some call "denspressure", electro-magnetism or what.

Just some amusing reading to entertain you while I try to find the origin of Universal Acceleration. It beats comic books any day.


PS I'd like to know too.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: RocksEverywhere on October 16, 2016, 02:49:53 PM
Quote from: RocksEverywhere link=topic=68209.msg1830460#msg1830460
This has been done.

<snip>


I'm lazy preoccupied (okay, both) at the moment, so I have not read the study, but was this conclusion verified by core samples because the depth of the cross section seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have verified the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?
Not having read both papers properly myself either, I would not know how exactly that went, but the one of the two papers that you didn't quote the image of calculates the volume of a certain formation based on the gravity anomalies, compares it to previous work and models, and finds that it matches.

I linked these two papers because they are publicly available, most scientific journals are behind a paywall.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 02:57:05 PM
Einstein.  Next question.
Really?

Reference please. I thought EP applied only to limited regions of space in which the gravitational fields can be considered constant.
And I do believe I can dig up the references for that.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: narcberry on October 16, 2016, 04:36:36 PM
Another topic concluded favorably to FET.

Thanks everyone for participating, this thread has been marked resolved.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 07:05:34 PM
Einstein.  Next question.
Really?

Reference please. I thought EP applied only to limited regions of space in which the gravitational fields can be considered constant.
And I do believe I can dig up the references for that.

You are obviously having a difficult time performing a Google search.  Perhaps you should walk away from the computer and play with your Legos instead.  Technology seems to be out of your grasp. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 08:20:50 PM
Einstein.  Next question.
Really?
Reference please. I thought EP applied only to limited regions of space in which the gravitational fields can be considered constant.
And I do believe I can dig up the references for that.
You are obviously having a difficult time performing a Google search.  Perhaps you should walk away from the computer and play with your Legos instead.  Technology seems to be out of your grasp.

"Technology seems to be out of" my "grasp", Oh really!
Oh sure, I've only been working with electronics and computing for decades before retiring and I'm not senile yet!
Real fun! Programming the first computer in Queensland in assembly language, before "Whizz" came along - well before Fortran. I did get past that to a bit C-compiler writing and programming for the early microprocessors.
And I have supervised theses on Instrument Landing Systems.

But, I will not claim to be any expert on General Relativity[1], but I can read and even understand some of the big words like Schwarzschild metric and even the implications of the Schwarzschild solution, though don't ask me to derive it!

My Google works fine!
Quote from: Peter M. Brown
However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the
Principle of Equivalence:
A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This assumption extends the principle of relativity to the uniformly accelerated transnational motion of the reference system.  The heuristic value of this assumption rests on the fact that it permits the replacement of a homogeneous gravitational field by a uniformly accelerated reference system, the later case being to some extent accessible to theoretical treatment.

From: Einstein’s gravitational field (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf)


Again

Quote from: Kevin Brown
This is similar to most modern statements of the principle, in the sense that it asserts a gravitational field – over a sufficiently small region (“immediate vicinity”) – can be “transformed away” by a suitable choice of free-falling coordinate system. Nevertheless, some modern scholars have claimed that Einstein never endorsed this “infinitesimal” form of the equivalence principle in arbitrary gravitational fields.
From Controversies Over the Equivalence Principle (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath622/kmath622.htm)

Quote from: Albert Einstein
Now it came to me, the fact of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass, i.e., the fact of the independence of the gravitational acceleration from the nature of the falling substance, may be expressed as follows: In a gravitational field (of small spatial extension) things behave as they do in a space free of gravitation, if one introduces into it, in place of an “inertial system”, a frame of reference accelerated relative to the former.
Quoted in Controversies Over the Equivalence Principle (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath622/kmath622.htm)
from his autobiographical notes, written in 1949.

Yes, the Equivalence Principle only applies over a region of space small enough for the gravitational field can be considered uniform.

But, If you are resorting to GR to explain your Uniform Acceleration, for consistency you must conclude that the mass of the earth produces a gravitational field, with all that implies.

You can hardly have one without the other!

I've shown yo (a few of mine) no you show me the result of your Google searches and prove me wrong!


[1] Certainly not to the extent of that claimed by that noted physicist "jroa" of The Flat Earth Society!
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 08:26:11 PM
It must suck to be technology impaired for decades.  We are here for you, rab.  You can count on us to walk you through adding a contact to your phone or performing a Google search.  We got your back. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Globetrotter on October 16, 2016, 08:46:37 PM
It must suck to be technology impaired for decades.  We are here for you, rab.  You can count on us to walk you through adding a contact to your phone or performing a Google search.  We got your back.

Dear Rabinoz.
A conversation with troll NEVER makes sense; even if he knows that he's wrong, he'll never admit that.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 08:51:08 PM
It must suck to be technology impaired for decades.  We are here for you, rab.  You can count on us to walk you through adding a contact to your phone or performing a Google search.  We got your back.

Dear Rabinoz.
A conversation with troll NEVER makes sense; even if he knows that he's wrong, he'll never admit that.

You sound like you are very versed in the troll ways.  Any other pro-tips you can offer us?  We all want to know what to look out for. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Globetrotter on October 16, 2016, 08:57:42 PM
It must suck to be technology impaired for decades.  We are here for you, rab.  You can count on us to walk you through adding a contact to your phone or performing a Google search.  We got your back.

Dear Rabinoz.
A conversation with troll NEVER makes sense; even if he knows that he's wrong, he'll never admit that.

You sound like you are very versed in the troll ways.  Any other pro-tips you can offer us?  We all want to know what to look out for.

I said. And nothing else to add.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 09:03:23 PM
It must suck to be technology impaired for decades.  We are here for you, rab.  You can count on us to walk you through adding a contact to your phone or performing a Google search.  We got your back.

Dear Rabinoz.
A conversation with troll NEVER makes sense; even if he knows that he's wrong, he'll never admit that.

You sound like you are very versed in the troll ways.  Any other pro-tips you can offer us?  We all want to know what to look out for.

I said. And nothing else to add.

Are you always so angry, or only when you learn about your model of the Earth getting ripped to shreds? 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2016, 09:05:53 PM
It must suck to be technology impaired for decades.  We are here for you, rab.  You can count on us to walk you through adding a contact to your phone or performing a Google search.  We got your back.

Dear Rabinoz.
A conversation with troll NEVER makes sense; even if he knows that he's wrong, he'll never admit that.

You sound like you are very versed in the troll ways.  Any other pro-tips you can offer us?  We all want to know what to look out for.
Yes, please ignore jroa when he's been drinking.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 18, 2016, 05:44:27 PM
Not having read both papers properly myself either, I would not know how exactly that went, but the one of the two papers that you didn't quote the image of calculates the volume of a certain formation based on the gravity anomalies, compares it to previous work and models, and finds that it matches.

Comparing inferred conclusions from the model with other models really only tells us that the models could be consistent. That's a far cry from verification or falsification.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 18, 2016, 07:40:39 PM
Not having read both papers properly myself either, I would not know how exactly that went, but the one of the two papers that you didn't quote the image of calculates the volume of a certain formation based on the gravity anomalies, compares it to previous work and models, and finds that it matches.

Comparing inferred conclusions from the model with other models really only tells us that the models could be consistent. That's a far cry from verification or falsification.

I must admit I have not kept up with this thread, but these papers might be relevant:
Gravity Prospecting For Massive Sulphide Deposits, in the Bathurst Mining Camp, New Brunswick, Canada, Thomas, M.D. (https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gravity-Prospecting-For-Massive-Sulphide-Deposits-in-the-Bathurst-Mining-Camp-New-Brunswick-Canada.pdf) where he comments
Quote
These and other density data indicate considerable potential for the detection of sulphide deposits in this environment by gravity surveys.
        The utility of the gravity method is well demonstrated by measurements made at the Brunswick No. 6 sulphide deposit. This deposit produced about 12 million tonnes of ore and gave rise to one of the largest gravity anomalies associated with a sulphide deposit in the Bathurst camp. The deposit accounted for roughly 4 mGal of the overall amplitude of about 4.5 mGal (Figure 2a; modified from Slichter, 1955). Iron formation accounted for the rest. The large size reflected essentially two characteristics of the body. It was exposed at surface, and it was relatively wide, being about 75 m wide at surface and 100 m wide at a depth of about 100 m.
<< I won't include Figures, but caption is: >>
Figure 2: Gravity profiles across (a) the Brunswick No. 6, and (b) the Brunswick No. 12 sulphide deposits.
The section for the No. 12 deposit was kindly provided by Graham Ascough, Noranda Exploration Ltd. Values of densities in g/cm3 are indicated.
and
MINERAL EXPLORATION, Földessy János (http://meip.x5.hu/files/1572).

But I wonder why queries are arising, as Gravity Prospecting is well established and I can't see the people involved caring in the slightest about a flat or globe earth, all they want is a method that works, and they seem to have one.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 18, 2016, 08:35:49 PM
They seem to say the same thing we've already established: gravimetry is one tool in surveying which has both advantages and associated difficulties.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: markjo on October 18, 2016, 08:50:20 PM
They seem to say the same thing we've already established: gravimetry is one tool in surveying which has both advantages and associated difficulties.
Then you admit that gravity is related to the density of matter? 

Another victory for RE!!  ;D
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 18, 2016, 08:55:33 PM
Related to, but not dependent on.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: fliggs on October 18, 2016, 09:41:51 PM
Related to, but not dependent on.

But you admit the existence of gravity and that is a big step forward.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 18, 2016, 11:25:27 PM
No, gravity is a myth of Newton's.   I have frequently admitted, however, that if anything very much like General Relativity is true, then the earth must exhibit some gravitation.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: fliggs on October 19, 2016, 12:04:53 AM
No, gravity is a myth of Newton's.   I have frequently admitted, however, that if anything very much like General Relativity is true, then the earth must exhibit some gravitation.

You mean the Theory of RElativity that has been comprehensively proven? Or the fact of gravity which has also been comprehensively proven? 

Now this is where you go off into your Dark Matter Tangent claiming that because something isnt perfectly understood that is therefore nonsense - an irony given that the flat earth is unable to prove anything at all while gravity (both newtonian an relativity) explains the entirety of earth-based gravity.

Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: disputeone on October 19, 2016, 12:09:05 AM
Gravity hasn't been comprehensively proven you utter dumbshoe.

Please google the definition of theory.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 19, 2016, 12:19:27 AM
Gravity hasn't been comprehensively proven you utter dumbshoe.

Please google the definition of theory.

General Relativity has been proven to a very high degree of confidence in most contexts. To be fair, we still don't know how it relates to quantum mechanics. Hence the search for a grand unified theory.

Also, the "theory" label has very little to do with whether something has been proven or not.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: disputeone on October 19, 2016, 12:40:26 AM
I admire your integrity totes.

GR has enough verifiable evidence to be used. I completely agree.

It is however a classical theory and as you said does not fit with QM which leads most people to understand that it is, at best incomplete.

This was the definition of theory I was using.
Quote
theory
ˈθɪəri/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:   hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

I don't intend to argue GR with you I have no illusions as to how that would go.
(Me drowning in a sea of ignorance)
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 19, 2016, 01:04:28 AM
I admire your integrity totes.

GR has enough verifiable evidence to be used. I completely agree.

It is however a classical theory and as you said does not fit with QM which leads most people to understand that it is, at best incomplete.

This was the definition of theory I was using.
Quote
theory
ˈθɪəri/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:   hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

I don't intend to argue GR with you I have no illusions as to how that would go.
(Me drowning in a sea of ignorance)
I am sorry to tell you, but this is just layman bullshit.

In science, a theory is the highest state a model can reach, i.e. it's nearly treated like truth. In science nothing can be absolutely proven to be a truth, that is why something can never be more true than a theory.

A hypothesis is what the layman means when they say "just a theory", it's speculation with little to no evidence.

Sadly, they don't teach this in school. This is probably one of the greatest sources of misconceptions ever. The best way to trigger a scientist is to say "just a theory", to them it' like saying "just a fact" or "just reality".

To be called a theory, something must be extensively proved through experimentation, have no statistically significant disproof, and be generally accepted or acknowledged.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: disputeone on October 19, 2016, 01:26:06 AM
Alright I jumped down fliggs throat because I don't like him, You got me.

Although you said yourself.

In science nothing can be absolutely proven.

Fliggs said,
the fact of gravity which has also been comprehensively proven?

I had a reasonable point even if it was a cheap shot, I understand you and totes do work in scientific fields and I have nothing but respect for that.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 19, 2016, 02:01:06 AM
I admire your integrity totes.

GR has enough verifiable evidence to be used. I completely agree.

It is however a classical theory and as you said does not fit with QM which leads most people to understand that it is, at best incomplete.

This was the definition of theory I was using.
Quote
theory
ˈθɪəri/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:   hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

I don't intend to argue GR with you I have no illusions as to how that would go.
(Me drowning in a sea of ignorance)
I am sorry to tell you, but this is just layman bullshit.

In science, a theory is the highest state a model can reach, i.e. it's nearly treated like truth. In science nothing can be absolutely proven to be a truth, that is why something can never be more true than a theory.

A hypothesis is what the layman means when they say "just a theory", it's speculation with little to no evidence.

Sadly, they don't teach this in school. This is probably one of the greatest sources of misconceptions ever. The best way to trigger a scientist is to say "just a theory", to them it' like saying "just a fact" or "just reality".

To be called a theory, something must be extensively proved through experimentation, have no statistically significant disproof, and be generally accepted or acknowledged.
This is not true. A theory can be "just a theory". 
They don't teach what you claimed in school because it's wrong.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 19, 2016, 02:59:56 AM
Alright I jumped down fliggs throat because I don't like him, You got me.

Although you said yourself.

In science nothing can be absolutely proven.

Fliggs said,
the fact of gravity which has also been comprehensively proven?

I had a reasonable point even if it was a cheap shot, I understand you and totes do work in scientific fields and I have nothing but respect for that.
I don't actually work in a scientific field, but I do have some scientific education.
This is not true. A theory can be "just a theory". 
They don't teach what you claimed in school because it's wrong.
A theory can and is of course just a theory. I was referring to the way most people use that term, as if it can be dismissed with just that statement.

And it's important that we distinguish between theory and scientific theory. The discussion was about scientific models, so when they are called theories we have to use the scientific definition of a theory. And my explanation of what a theory is is correct (although admittedly not saturated):
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html (http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html)
https://global.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory (https://global.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/)

And I did in fact learn how a hypothesis becomes a theory in school, but they only teach it if you choose the right programme, so not everyone learns it. And it becomes a problem when people who get in power have not learnt the differences but are still in a position where they will or might discuss and argue science (politicians, for example).
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: disputeone on October 19, 2016, 04:41:16 AM
But did you really just cite those links

Quote
Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

https://global.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory

Even I thought that was rough.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 19, 2016, 04:59:27 AM
But did you really just cite those links

Quote
Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

https://global.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory

Even I thought that was rough.
It may seem rough, but it is true.

For example, in general relativity it is stated that mass bends space-time, and it follows with some formulas. How do we know that space-time is bent? The maths work, for sure. But really any explanation could be used. The former theory was Newtons, mass attracts mass. His formulas also works (on earth), but that does not mean his explanation was right. And then we have what GE may evolve into with the progress of the standard model, which predicts that gravity is actually carried as a force by gravitons. The explanation would change, but the maths would not on large scales. And what is a particle? With advances in quantum field theory, we might eventually explain them as disturbances on energetic fields.

But this is still just how we humans visualise it in our heads, trying to apply earth-like geometries on something we cannot really imagine. Looking at an object fall does does not let us see bent space-time, we can only guess that the bend is there, or that the attraction is there, or that particles are pulling the object.

Another example I told Jroa - If I said that things float because invisible fairies lift things depending on the mass of the medium they displace, is my model right or wrong?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2016, 05:37:03 AM
But did you really just cite those links

Quote
Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

https://global.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory

Even I thought that was rough.
It may seem rough, but it is true.

For example, in general relativity it is stated that mass bends space-time, and it follows with some formulas. How do we know that space-time is bent? The maths work, for sure. But really any explanation could be used. The former theory was Newtons, mass attracts mass. His formulas also works (on earth), but that does not mean his explanation was right. And then we have what GE may evolve into with the progress of the standard model, which predicts that gravity is actually carried as a force by gravitons. The explanation would change, but the maths would not on large scales. And what is a particle? With advances in quantum field theory, we might eventually explain them as disturbances on energetic fields.

But this is still just how we humans visualise it in our heads, trying to apply earth-like geometries on something we cannot really imagine. Looking at an object fall does does not let us see bent space-time, we can only guess that the bend is there, or that the attraction is there, or that particles are pulling the object.

Another example I told Jroa - If I said that things float because invisible fairies lift things depending on the mass of the medium they displace, is my model right or wrong?
And I don't believe that Einstein ever regarded himself as proving Newton wrong.

What is interesting is that if Einstein's GR can be solved using the Schwarzschild metric[1] for the case of a small object (say a rocket, a satellite, an aircraft, a car, you, I or a ball) travelling at a velocity much less than "c" near the surface of a massive object (say the earth).

This solution ends up with simply Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation, and includes centripetal acceleration and tehe Coriolis effect. Newtonian solutions are perfectlt acceptable for velocities up to at least c/1000 and masses well above the earth's mass, though this depends on the precision one needs for the answer.
It has been estimated that the curvature of space in the vicinity of earth might make a 1 cm difference to the earth's radius, and in the vicinity of the sun about 1 m difference in the radius of the sun.

So, GR just reduces to Newton's laws for all cases that Newton could possibly envision. Newton had no idea that the velocity of light was finite.


[1] See Wikipedia, Schwarzschild metric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric).
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 19, 2016, 05:41:06 AM
And I don't believe that Einstein ever regarded himself as proving Newton wrong.

What is interesting is that if Einstein's GR can be solved using the Schwarzschild metric[1] for the case of a small object (say a rocket, a satellite, an aircraft, a car, you, I or a ball) travelling at a velocity much less than "c" near the surface of a massive object (say the earth).

This solution ends up with simply Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation, and includes centripetal acceleration and tehe Coriolis effect. Newtonian solutions are perfectlt acceptable for velocities up to at least c/1000 and masses well above the earth's mass, though this depends on the precision one needs for the answer.
It has been estimated that the curvature of space in the vicinity of earth might make a 1 cm difference to the earth's radius, and in the vicinity of the sun about 1 m difference in the radius of the sun.

So, GR just reduces to Newton's laws for all cases that Newton could possibly envision. Newton had no idea that the velocity of light was finite.


[1] See Wikipedia, Schwarzschild metric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric).
Yes, thanks for explaining that in better detail.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2016, 06:24:19 AM
No, gravity is a myth of Newton's.   I have frequently admitted, however, that if anything very much like General Relativity is true, then the earth must exhibit some gravitation.
*sigh*  We aren't going back to the pedantic gravity/gravitation distinction nonsense, are we?

Either way, terrestrial gravitation pretty much irrevocably kills FET.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 19, 2016, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar link=topic=68209.msg1831425#msg1831425
I am sorry to tell you, but this is just layman bullshit.

In science, a theory is the highest state a model can reach, i.e. it's nearly treated like truth. In science nothing can be absolutely proven to be a truth, that is why something can never be more true than a theory.

Eh, what? ???    My new theory is that you are full of it.  Nothing can be more true than this theory. Not very often you hear evangelization like that...


Quote
The best way to trigger a scientist is to say "just a theory", to them it' like saying "just a fact" or "just reality".
That's obviously true of those seeking to cement their dogma and silence critical thinking, yes. There are plenty of your co-religionists out there, to be sure.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 19, 2016, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar link=topic=68209.msg1831425#msg1831425
I am sorry to tell you, but this is just layman bullshit.

In science, a theory is the highest state a model can reach, i.e. it's nearly treated like truth. In science nothing can be absolutely proven to be a truth, that is why something can never be more true than a theory.

Eh, what? ???    My new theory is that you are full of it.  Nothing can be more true than this theory. Not very often you hear evangelization like that...


Quote
The best way to trigger a scientist is to say "just a theory", to them it' like saying "just a fact" or "just reality".
That's obviously true of those seeking to cement their dogma and silence critical thinking, yes. There are plenty of your co-religionists out there, to be sure.
Did you even read the sources I provided backing up my statements?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: boydster on October 19, 2016, 03:17:40 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar link=topic=68209.msg1831425#msg1831425
I am sorry to tell you, but this is just layman bullshit.

In science, a theory is the highest state a model can reach, i.e. it's nearly treated like truth. In science nothing can be absolutely proven to be a truth, that is why something can never be more true than a theory.

Eh, what? ???    My new theory is that you are full of it.  Nothing can be more true than this theory. Not very often you hear evangelization like that...


Quote
The best way to trigger a scientist is to say "just a theory", to them it' like saying "just a fact" or "just reality".
That's obviously true of those seeking to cement their dogma and silence critical thinking, yes. There are plenty of your co-religionists out there, to be sure.

I don't mean to compare you to uninvited guest, but I've been discussing this same issue with him: in science, words have specific meanings and you can't just decide to take one of those words (like "theory," for example) and use it in a way that is detached from the meaning. A scientific theory is a framework or model that been treated and not yet falsified, but by definition NEEDS to be falsifiable in some way, meaning it could in summer way be proven false regardless of how improbable it may seem. You can't prove a theory right, you can only say that it has not yet failed any tests of its coherence.

What you offered as a "theory" was no such thing. And you are smart enough that I'm sure you know that.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 19, 2016, 03:57:52 PM
Master_evar if theory is the highest state a model can reach, then you would never have competing theories.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: boydster on October 19, 2016, 04:03:27 PM
Master_evar if theory is the highest state a model can reach, then you would never have competing theories.

Why couldn't there be competing theories that agree in ways they have been tested but disagree in ways they have yet to be tested (due to technological incapability, for example)?
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: sokarul on October 19, 2016, 04:17:49 PM
Master_evar if theory is the highest state a model can reach, then you would never have competing theories.

Why couldn't there be competing theories that agree in ways they have been tested but disagree in ways they have yet to be tested (due to technological incapability, for example)?
Maybe you could, but as an example, there are hundreds of theories competing with General Theory of Relativity. One is String Theory. 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 19, 2016, 04:20:56 PM
Guys, the word "theory" really does not imply anything about whether it is proven or not. Ideally, the word "theory" should imply a certain amount of credibility. However, in practice, it tends to be used rather loosely, since there is no governing body that decides whether something qualifies as a theory or not. You really shouldn't try to infer anything from it.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2016, 07:43:35 PM
There seems to be a problem with the present discussion. The topic is "Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?"

It seems to presuppose that do RE'ers necessarily accept the UA of the universe, which is certainly "ain't necessarily so"[1].

As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no connection between the shape of the earth and modern Cosmology. The shape of the earth was sorted out in many cultures anywhere for a few centuries ago to over two millennia ago. And our "place in the Universe" (Geocentric ~ Heliocentric) was pretty decided around 500 years ago,
          though some did not accept the Heliocentric Globe officially for a couple of centuries after that and
          a few cultures do not yet accept the Heliocentric Globe.

As far as I know the idea of the expanding Universe originated with Edwin Hubble around 1929, long after the shape of the earth was generally accepted as a Globe.
Quote
After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder."
From: The Expanding Universe. (http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp)

So I believe that the real answer to "Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?" should be that they do not necessarily "accept the UA of the universe" at all - it has nothing to do with the case.

And now the argument seems to have degenerated to the meanings of "hypothesis" and "theory" - an argument which cannot be resolved because the commonly accepted meaning (including most dictionaries) of "theory" is closer to what a scientist would call a "hypothesis".

As someone earlier said, a good way to get a scientist's "back up" is to claim "Well, that's only in theory!" - meaning that we don
t really expect theory to agree with practice.

And a good way to get an academic's "back up" is to claim "Well, that's all academic!" - meaning that it doesn't really matter in practice.



[1] Sorry "Sportin' Life" from "Porgy and Bess", Ira Gershwin.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: boydster on October 19, 2016, 07:57:23 PM
Guys, the word "theory" really does not imply anything about whether it is proven or not. Ideally, the word "theory" should imply a certain amount of credibility. However, in practice, it tends to be used rather loosely, since there is no governing body that decides whether something qualifies as a theory or not. You really shouldn't try to infer anything from it.

I get what you are saying, but I also know Ski is pretty well read, and Master_evar referred to a scientific theory, to which Ski replied with a colloquial interpretation of the word as if it were a legitimate response and should carry the same weight. That wasn't honest discourse. That's all.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 19, 2016, 09:48:21 PM
Master_evar if theory is the highest state a model can reach, then you would never have competing theories.

Why couldn't there be competing theories that agree in ways they have been tested but disagree in ways they have yet to be tested (due to technological incapability, for example)?
Maybe you could, but as an example, there are hundreds of theories competing with General Theory of Relativity. One is String Theory.
Yes.

Ok, just one thing I should have said. When I used the word theory I meant the whole model, but the model itself is usually split into two parts, one is the hypothesis and the other is the laws. The laws are the mathematical formulas that works, the hypothesis explains how the formulas should be interpreted. If the laws always works the way the hypothesis says it should, the hypothesis can be called a theory. Often the laws are extremely similar or can be simplified to exactly the same for many different hypothesis, so it's really the laws that are close to true. But when a hypothesis becomes a theory, the whole model can be said to have the status of theory, including the laws. You'll find that many of the alternative models' laws can be simplified to the same law, or a few very similar laws.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: fliggs on October 19, 2016, 10:18:36 PM
Alright I jumped down fliggs throat because I don't like him, You got me.

Although you said yourself.

In science nothing can be absolutely proven.

Fliggs said,
the fact of gravity which has also been comprehensively proven?

I had a reasonable point even if it was a cheap shot, I understand you and totes do work in scientific fields and I have nothing but respect for that.

Maybe you didnt read that word 'comprehensively' which is a bit different to 'absolutely'

And anyhow, proving gravity does not mean knowing absolutely everything about it. It exists, no matter what anyone would like to think. HOW it works might be a very different matter.

As for QM, the problem there is one of uncertainty, quantum probability distributions and even theoretical temporal shifts that make understanding gravity at that level very difficult. After all, out understanding of gravity is based on observation. It is more than a bit hard to observe the quantum state.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: fliggs on October 19, 2016, 10:24:02 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar link=topic=68209.msg1831425#msg1831425
I am sorry to tell you, but this is just layman bullshit.

In science, a theory is the highest state a model can reach, i.e. it's nearly treated like truth. In science nothing can be absolutely proven to be a truth, that is why something can never be more true than a theory.

Eh, what? ???    My new theory is that you are full of it.  Nothing can be more true than this theory. Not very often you hear evangelization like that...


Quote
The best way to trigger a scientist is to say "just a theory", to them it' like saying "just a fact" or "just reality".
That's obviously true of those seeking to cement their dogma and silence critical thinking, yes. There are plenty of your co-religionists out there, to be sure.

I don't mean to compare you to uninvited guest, but I've been discussing this same issue with him: in science, words have specific meanings and you can't just decide to take one of those words (like "theory," for example) and use it in a way that is detached from the meaning. A scientific theory is a framework or model that been treated and not yet falsified, but by definition NEEDS to be falsifiable in some way, meaning it could in summer way be proven false regardless of how improbable it may seem. You can't prove a theory right, you can only say that it has not yet failed any tests of its coherence.

What you offered as a "theory" was no such thing. And you are smart enough that I'm sure you know that.


I would like to thank you for this quote: "n science, words have specific meanings and you can't just decide to take one of those words (like "theory," for example) and use it in a way that is detached from the meaning."

it is amazing how many people love to simply redefine concepts for whatever reason that want. Psychology is rife with it. We used to know what transgender was. Now - for some people - it includes absolutely anyone and everyone who wants to or thinks they are the opposite sex. It is a bit like the woman claiming to be black but who was white and from white parents.  My biggest trigger is people who simply want to changed the definitions of words or concepts without just cause.

\rant
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: fliggs on October 19, 2016, 10:25:48 PM
Master_evar if theory is the highest state a model can reach, then you would never have competing theories.

Why couldn't there be competing theories that agree in ways they have been tested but disagree in ways they have yet to be tested (due to technological incapability, for example)?
Maybe you could, but as an example, there are hundreds of theories competing with General Theory of Relativity. One is String Theory.

Not only are there not 'hundreds' String Theory doesnt compete with GR. It competes or adds to the Standard Model.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Nightsky on October 19, 2016, 11:56:33 PM
See subject.

You are not asking the true fundamental question and that is why do FE ers ignore the true nature of the universe along with the fact that we have been exploring it for over 400 years, first visually and more recently physically?
Do you deny the existence of telescopes?
Do you deny the fact of space travel?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exploration
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Ski on October 20, 2016, 12:04:43 AM
Guys, the word "theory" really does not imply anything about whether it is proven or not. Ideally, the word "theory" should imply a certain amount of credibility. However, in practice, it tends to be used rather loosely, since there is no governing body that decides whether something qualifies as a theory or not. You really shouldn't try to infer anything from it.

I get what you are saying, but I also know Ski is pretty well read, and Master_evar referred to a scientific theory, to which Ski replied with a colloquial interpretation of the word as if it were a legitimate response and should carry the same weight. That wasn't honest discourse. That's all.

A "scientific theory" is not "the highest state a model can reach" nor do good scientists treat "theory" as "fact" or "reality". The entire post was like a religious tract.  Awful.

Even the perfectly dogmatic sokarul found it rubbish. This is like the fortieth time we've ever agreed. It sounds like a lot, but he's been here man y years. So you know it must be the purest of manures.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Master_Evar on October 20, 2016, 12:10:44 AM
A "scientific theory" is not "the highest state a model can reach" nor do good scientists treat "theory" as "fact" or "reality". The entire post was like a religious tract.  Awful.
A theory is indeed the highest state a model can reach. And I did not say that scientists treat theories as facts. But when people dismiss a theory by saying "it's just just a theory" it's highly ignorant, as a model does not become a theory without support from observations and evidence (reality is quite literally what we observe).
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Nightsky on October 20, 2016, 12:15:05 AM
See subject.

Because it's another pseudo scientific piece of flat earth nonsense. We travel in space, fly in air craft, launch satalites, have space stations, have countless videos and stills of the earth that show its form. We have been using telescopes for over 400 years and have developed a good understanding of the universal laws that are taught in all the universities of the world.......

.....then we have a few poor souls here who live in the dark. They deny the truth that is their for all to see, then present their cockeyed version of the world that only a small handful believe. They think that denying some selected main stream knowledge makes them smarter than the average bear!
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: fliggs on October 20, 2016, 02:08:04 AM
See subject.

You are not asking the true fundamental question and that is why do FE ers ignore the true nature of the universe along with the fact that we have been exploring it for over 400 years, first visually and more recently physically?
Do you deny the existence of telescopes?
Do you deny the fact of space travel?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exploration

They deny anything they cannot personally experience or prove. That and the fact that a good portion of them are just flat-out crazy.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: narcberry on November 15, 2016, 05:53:05 PM
See subject.

Because it's another pseudo scientific piece of flat earth nonsense. We travel in space, fly in air craft, launch satalites, have space stations, have countless videos and stills of the earth that show its form. We have been using telescopes for over 400 years and have developed a good understanding of the universal laws that are taught in all the universities of the world.......

.....then we have a few poor souls here who live in the dark. They deny the truth that is their for all to see, then present their cockeyed version of the world that only a small handful believe. They think that denying some selected main stream knowledge makes them smarter than the average bear!

We've been to space, says NASA. They even gave us these composite images of what the earth looks like - post processing included!
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: rabinoz on November 15, 2016, 06:26:09 PM
See subject.

Because it's another pseudo scientific piece of flat earth nonsense. We travel in space, fly in aircraft, launch satellites, have space stations, have countless videos and stills of the earth that show its form. We have been using telescopes for over 400 years and have developed a good understanding of the universal laws that are taught in all the universities of the world.......

.....then we have a few poor souls here who live in the dark. They deny the truth that is there for all to see, then present their cockeyed version of the world that only a small handful believe. They think that denying some selected main stream knowledge makes them smarter than the average bear!

We've been to space, says NASA. They even gave us these composite images of what the earth looks like - post processing included!

And now they and other space agencies have given us numerous non-composite photos too!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20DSCOVR%20EPIC%20187_1003703_africa_zpsduxzmo1m.png)
DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015_zpsuep9wrte.png)
Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd_zpsbdu5jlnj.png)
Himawari-8 20160705120000fd

You can believe what you like, that has not the slightest effect on the facts, or on me!

When you start pushing a theory that explains what I see and know of the earth, maybe I'll listen. But all you ever seem able to do is find imaginary faults with the Globe, but never explain the numerous holes in you own model of the earth.

What explanation you do give are no more than statements by "Narcberry", well in real life that carries no weight ar all.
You need to come up with evidence for your own theories of everything.

By the way it's not just NASA, up to the end of 2012 the following countries had launched their own satellites:
Soviet Union on 4 October 1957
United States on 1 February 1958
France on 26 November 1965
Japan on 11 February 1970
China on 24 April 1970
United Kingdom on 28 October 1971
India on 18 July 1980
Israel on 19 September 1988
Russia on 21 January 1992
Ukraine on 13 July 1992
Iran on 2 February 2009
North Korea on 12 December 2012

::) ;D ::) all part of "the conspiracy", I suppose  ::) ;D ::)
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: narcberry on November 17, 2016, 05:39:19 PM
Cool stars bro
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Empirical on November 18, 2016, 12:05:40 AM
Cool stars bro
Because as everyone knows, stars are definitely visible in the presence of a major light source. Just like how the sun doesn't stop you seeing the stars in the day, reflection from the earth definitely wouldn't stop the stars being visible to the camera.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: scabbage on November 18, 2016, 07:19:10 AM
It seems people are confused about fact, theory, hypothesis and law.

(http://i.imgur.com/CYHF9CZ.png)

So I made an infographic to help explain.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Candlejack on November 18, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
We've been to space, says NASA. They even gave us these composite images of what the earth looks like - post processing included!
Prove it ;)
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: scabbage on November 18, 2016, 07:50:52 AM
Prove it ;)


Here is composite posted and quickly removed by NASA after errors were pointed out to them. I'm no CGi expert, but it looks like those clouds were copy/pasted!


(http://i.imgur.com/lvjhrD8.png)
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: disputeone on November 20, 2016, 09:29:58 PM
Prove it ;)


Here is composite posted and quickly removed by NASA after errors were pointed out to them. I'm no CGi expert, but it looks like those clouds were copy/pasted!


(http://i.imgur.com/lvjhrD8.png)

Did you make that yourself?

It's fantastic.
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: southern hemispherer on November 21, 2016, 03:55:29 AM
back to the topic, I read a while back that someone mentioned that it is the earth that is affected by the UA, and that humans weren't, which is why we stick to the surface, gravity like and don't float around!  OK, so I guess airplanes are not affected either, so they have to be always accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s just to maintain altitude otherwise the UA earth would smack into them! At least RE'ers have the curvature and gravity to explain a bit of why airplanes don't fly off at a tangent into space like FE'ers often claim, apart from the wings, flaps, thrust of the engines and atmosphere!
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 21, 2016, 05:05:05 AM
You don't feel the wind when standing on the leeward side of a sail, do you? 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: southern hemispherer on November 21, 2016, 05:56:33 AM
You don't feel the wind when standing on the leeward side of a sail, do you?

Your favorite saying on this thread, but all it is is hot winded nonsense where FE 'logic' comes into play as usual. Comparing wind to a universal force - you may as well compare a fart to a magnetic field!
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 21, 2016, 05:58:43 AM
You don't feel the wind when standing on the leeward side of a sail, do you?

Your favorite saying on this thread, but all it is is hot winded nonsense where FE 'logic' comes into play as usual. Comparing wind to a universal force - you may as well compare a fart to a magnetic field!

You would not feel the hot wind on the leeward side of a sail, would you? 
Title: Re: Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on November 21, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Prove it ;)


Here is composite posted and quickly removed by NASA after errors were pointed out to them. I'm no CGi expert, but it looks like those clouds were copy/pasted!


(http://i.imgur.com/lvjhrD8.png)

Did you make that yourself?

It's fantastic.

scabbage for FE!