Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It's your responsibility to figure out the details of your own damn experiment. I'm not your parent. I'm not your guardian. I don't offer tutoring or support. Once you come up with a real experiment we can talk.
As quoted by Matrix and others, an accelerometer can never measure this "force of gravity" directly. According to General Relativity, an accelerometer would measure acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference (free-fall), where the ground would be a non-inertial frame of reference.
But what if Raist II and the rest of your clones revolt against Raist Alpha?
Why would they do that. I created them. I'd treat them well too. When they asked why they had to do work I'd remind them they wouldn't exist without me. My natural guilt would send my clones back to their jobs.
It reads zero in free fall because all the components which make up an accelerometer are accelerating at the same rate. Gravity, y'see, is universal.Tell that to Einstein.
When you're able to figure out a workable or coherent experiment let me know so we can discuss the matter further.
Have you figured out what you're talking about yet? I don't see any PM's in my message box.
When you figure out what you're talking about feel free to send me a PM. Until then, lurk more and post less.
There are some intelligent women. They just are a miracle to find. My current woman is about to give a speech to 2,500 people.
That's because I'm asking you to think things out and be coherent. You can't do it.
You're the one who can't even think up a workable or coherent experiment. When you figure out what you're talking about feel free to send me a PM.
It reads 0 in free-fall due to the absence of a downward force.
I can stop considering your experiment because it is neither thought out or coherent.
But if I do that then the shadow and sun would have changed position by the time I walked to a point many miles away to place the next stick. What the hell kind of triangulation experiment is that?
Seriously. I saw the imperfect ocean claim that's also being discussed right now, but it isn't very compelling since the oceans are in constant motion through undersea heat currents anyway.
I understand there are books, regarding the holes in RET, but wouldn't it be simpler for everybody if the most glaring holes in RET were presented all in one place? Here in this topic, for example.
Ah, but there are some people that retain everything they ever hear very well but couldn't apply any of their knowledge if they had to.
Either learn to read or stop posting.
Try looking at the shadows.
Hint: From the sun.
How can I look at the shadow of a stick if I walked several miles away from it?
QuoteEven in a FE senerio, which way is the earth accelerating now?
Up.
Are you incapable of reading, or are you an idiot?
Please read my statement again. The FE (Flat Earth) is a possibility. This supposition is supported by the equivalence principle, which talks about frames of reference.
The stick recedes and ascends via perception to the level of the eye, just like it would do on a plane. Therefore the earth is a plane. Thanks for contributing.
Even better, boxers are playing a sport they are payed to fight each other, I've yet to meet an organization that pays governments to go to war. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist that now believes the cold war was funded.
What will walking away from a stick tell me about the shape of the earth?
The clue is "Proved the earth is round." It's a 6 letter name; that's all I know. All help is appreciated.
I'm confused. Are we talking about "the possibility of a flat Earth" or are we talking about distinguishing frames?
The possibility of a FE is permitted by the equivalence of gravity with continual acceleration, so both.
Have you considered the possibility that the bulk of the FE disc is rendered non-gravitating by interaction with the UA field/mechanism?
This would preserve gravitation between masses on the surface (such as torsion pendulums), while allowing the FE disc to retain its structure.
No, your mistake is you assume I think that.
I am simply saying that the theory is flawed until we can discover evidence of dark matter.
I guess only believing in things that can be observed directly or indirectly is a trait that has been lost by over educated idiots that have never had to doubt anything their professors said. Now unless you are going to show me a link that says "and here we found some dark energy in john's closet while looking for the hubble telescope" I really don't give a fuck, and I guarantee you it won't be new.
You guys need to provide your own evidence which proves your model right.
All the evidence I need is right there in my signature link, published and peer reviewed.
When you guys manage to publish a piece of literature which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe let us know.
We have never observed it. It was put in purely because it was the only solution withing the current understanding we had of gravity. I'm not saying there is no dark matter, I'm saying until it is verified there is a GIGANTIC hole in the theory. Let me put it this way for you Galaxies couldn't exist in the current model until they added dark matter to it. Does that not seem like the theory originially had a teensy eensy weensy hole?
Your problem is that you are not willing to accept even the possibility of a flat Earth, so obviously this clouds your judgement during rational debate.
Can you suggest one single experiment which can tell the difference between a uniformly accelerating frame, and one in a gravitational field? I'll save you the trouble - you can't; Einstein himself proved that the two are equivalent and indistinguishable for an observer in that frame.
How does it show the Earth is round?
Because there is an attraction between masses.
...which shows that the Earth is round how exactly?
