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.
Yeah they refract but the scatter is a major problem and the signal isn't very good when it comes back down.
My GPS receiver, as well as showing my current location (handy in a GPS), also has an option to show a map of the sky, with the positions of the Sun and the Moon, and also the locations of all the GPS satellites that are in the sky.
For each of those satellites, it shows whether or not it has been able to get a lock on the signal.
Now, buildings will block the signal; so, if I stand next to a building, the GPS will loose the signal from those satellites that are blocked by that building.
That all makes sense if the signal is coming from satellites, but how does it work if the signal is coming from towers? (Presumably the towers can’t send a signal that is directly overhead ,or even almost overhead).
T-Shirts! Now!
Also, gum
back again?
http://ubuntuce.com/
Just for you.
Jesux is better.
I know that. I was saying "yes" only to him saying our speed was irrelevant.
But since the entire universe is apparently moving at the same rate, our speed is irrelevant.
Yes.
then one could infer that there would be no accumulation of relativistic effects over time
Because I don't need to prove it is impossible for the earth to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 for 1 billion years.Modern science disagrees with you, so yes, you do need to prove it.
Ok here's my point, you can't answer a simple question and back it up. Hell you can't even answer a question. I ask a question about your theory. You who believe your theory answer the question and support it with fact. The question is, what is the current speed of the earth if it has been moving at 9.8 m/s2 for 1 billion years. It's your theory. All I have to say is, if you can't back it up with fact, it must be crap. There's one from the FET book. If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you guessed it, it must be crap.
The question was answered with precision:
Earth's velocity = c * tanh(9.8t/c)
Pick any age of the earth, and that is the speed relative to the starting point.
Roughly 0.999c, with some arbitrary number of .9's, depending on the age you pick.
Your question is crap, because while you have not stated as much, you are indirectly trying to prove that FET is poor because our Earth must be moving super fast, which doesn't make sense to you. And that is crap, because our speed is 100% irrelevant.
So I can pick any speed I want? FET theory doesn't have an age for earth?
Because I don't need to prove it is impossible for the earth to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 for 1 billion years.Modern science disagrees with you, so yes, you do need to prove it.
Ok here's my point, you can't answer a simple question and back it up. Hell you can't even answer a question. I ask a question about your theory. You who believe your theory answer the question and support it with fact. The question is, what is the current speed of the earth if it has been moving at 9.8 m/s2 for 1 billion years. It's your theory. All I have to say is, if you can't back it up with fact, it must be crap. There's one from the FET book. If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you guessed it, it must be crap.
Ok. So put math where your mouth is and figure it up. An acceleration rate of 1g (9.8m/s^2) for 1 billion years brings to what speed?
I'll get back to you on that one. I'll need to combine calculus with special relativity, something I can't say I have a lot of experience with.
Take your time and thanks for the effort. I mean that sincerely. I appreciate you trying to do the math.
Every observer has every right to call himself stationary.
Says who? This now becomes absurd.
Astronomers of this time period saw the result of this being unsalvageable for a Ptolemaic cosmology, if the results were accepted as true. As a result, later 17th century competition between astronomical cosmologies focused on variations of Tycho Brahe's Tychonic system (in which the Earth was still at the center of the universe, and around it revolved the Sun, but all other planets revolved around the Sun in one massive set of epicycles), or variations on the Copernican system."
FAILED again FErs ......
Why is that special? You are assuming RE universe in which everything is a planet orbiting a star. No such thing in FE universe. There are no planets orbiting stars. So if the Earth did, we would be special, and we can't have that can we?
What about Mercury transit and the Venus transit of the sun coming up in 2012?
No, you didn't. You said we aren't special. You have given 0 proof we are not special. Show me ONE FACT you have posted that proves we are not special. All you have posted is assumptions.
gtfo.
Reverse engineer it, or did you fail critical thinking 101?
The moon and sun being discs?
special
the earth being flat in the first place when nothing in the universe forms flat?
No star to orbit?
The picture's not fake, 'cos there's no effort to pass it as real. Any kid with an XBox can identify a CGI like that.
GE Theory is Golstein Earth Theory. I am writing a FAQ at the moment. Basically we live in a rapidly condensing kinder egg.
They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view. In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.
Er.... you missed finding the force at the given coordinate locations.
Anyway, the point is that this is not directly solvable. There is no direct solution, only bound estimates based on approximations, and such would involve complicated elliptical integrals. Intuition can often lead one astray. For example, the gravitational forces inside a sphere of mass would be zero at all locations. This is non obvious. The force inside a ring would be directed directly away from the center. The force on a disc would only have any real horizontal component at the edges. We do not know how large the disc of the Earth is.
Allow me to correct you on this. There is a direct solution
(It's entirely possible I've made a mistake, if so feel free to correct me).
I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?
David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?
All of the proof that messier has shown has been from amatuer astronomers not from NASA.
You fail
again
I think he is refering the the moment of mass of a lamina, which can be determined by using this f(x) is upper boind of the region R, and g(x) is the lower bound.
Equation for circle is : x^2 + y^2=1
Since the face of the Earth is a circle (or is a assumed to be) when plotted on a graph this would be the region between f(x)=sqrt(1-x^2) and g(x)=-sqrt(1-x^2). Where 1= one Earth radius.
To find the coordinates of the centriod, Xm and Ym you use this basic relationship
Xm= 1/A* int[-1,1 (f(x)-g(x))dx]
Ym=1/2A*int[-1,1 (f(x)^2-g(x)^2)dx]
Where A is the area of the circle, which in this case is pi*r^2, since r=1 it can be taken as pi. Anyways, without doing any of the integration it should be obvious that the centriod of a circular lamina is 0,0. Since the Earth is presumed to be a cylinder, the moment of mass also has a depth coordinate Zm, but the Xm and Ym are still at (0,0) the center of the circle. This could really be deduced by common sense though.
Now the flaw in this argument is that such a procedure assumes a number of things, for one that the mass-density differential is constant throughout the lamina (i.e the lamina is of uniform thickness), this is an unwarrented and unsupported assumption, as density can vary greatly depending on location and depth and such an object can have a great number of barycenters.
This method fails to deliver the correct moment of mass if the Earth is anything other than a uniformally dense perfect cylinder, we don't know that it is a cylinder at all, the underside can be convex for all we know. In fact he cannot prove the thickness of the Earth beyond 12km at one point. Frankly, this method is plain unreliable for his purposes. And, like Username said, the effect may not even be detectable.
(I may have gotten something wrong, been a while since my last calculus course)
Edit: Somone here mentioned Van der Walls forces (dispersion forces), these forces are actually forces, they are caused by a temporary dipole formed by unequal electron distribution (i.e. they are coulombic forces). As far as I know electromagnetic forces are real forces.
Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color. This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.
Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.
How much of the earth do you need to directly measure in order to determine its flatness?