UA is false based on new evidence

The UA should produce a gravitational field uniform within the atmosphere of Earth, yet precise measures show that the gravitation decreases with an increase of altitude as little as 1 meter near the Earth's surface and by the quantity predicted by RET, but not predicted by FET.

Also if we accept Username's analysis of a finite 'g' for an infinite FE slab, then that model also predicts a uniform gravitation.

Hence the evidence again supports RET over all models of FET.

Reference: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630.

If we've managed to overcome all the other evidence, I'm sure we'll cover this one as well.

If we've managed to overcome all the other evidence, I'm sure we'll cover this one as well.

Since you haven't overcome all of the other evidence, you must not be sure.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 16, 2010, 10:18:24 PM

If we've managed to overcome all the other evidence, I'm sure we'll cover this one as well.

Since you haven't overcome all of the other evidence, you must not be sure.

Why would you feel compelled to bring "new" evidence to the table, if it's already been proven false? 

The UA should produce a gravitational field uniform within the atmosphere of Earth, yet precise measures show that the gravitation decreases with an increase of altitude as little as 1 meter near the Earth's surface and by the quantity predicted by RET, but not predicted by FET.

*Points to the FAQ*

Quote from: ClockTower on November 16, 2010, 10:15:22 PM

The UA should produce a gravitational field uniform within the atmosphere of Earth, yet precise measures show that the gravitation decreases with an increase of altitude as little as 1 meter near the Earth's surface and by the quantity predicted by RET, but not predicted by FET.

*Points to the FAQ*

<points to the evidence that matched RET's prediction while FET couldn't even make a prediction>

Also if we accept Username's analysis of a finite 'g' for an infinite FE slab, then that model also predicts a uniform gravitation.

Incorrect.  This is only true if there is no other mass in the universe, and if the infinite fe slab is uniform - which obviously it is not.  The uniform version is an approximation.  I'll be posting the calculations for stability of a non-uniform version as soon as I get some time set aside to open up Maple, remember maple syntax, and then export to html.  I may do a handwritten version first, but I'd like diagrams.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 16, 2010, 10:15:22 PM

Also if we accept Username's analysis of a finite 'g' for an infinite FE slab, then that model also predicts a uniform gravitation.

Incorrect.  This is only true if there is no other mass in the universe, and if the infinite fe slab is uniform - which obviously it is not.  The uniform version is an approximation.  I'll be posting the calculations for stability of a non-uniform version as soon as I get some time set aside to open up Maple, remember maple syntax, and then export to html.  I may do a handwritten version first, but I'd like diagrams.

So you're changing your story. 'g' from the FE is constant without regard to distance above the FE. If so, your model will be in serious trouble. Keeping the Sun aloft will be all but impossible.

I've rather given up on you and your timetables. It's going onto winter and still nothing on Rock City, TN, for example.

Quote from: Username on November 19, 2010, 09:21:33 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 16, 2010, 10:15:22 PM

Also if we accept Username's analysis of a finite 'g' for an infinite FE slab, then that model also predicts a uniform gravitation.

Incorrect.  This is only true if there is no other mass in the universe, and if the infinite fe slab is uniform - which obviously it is not.  The uniform version is an approximation.  I'll be posting the calculations for stability of a non-uniform version as soon as I get some time set aside to open up Maple, remember maple syntax, and then export to html.  I may do a handwritten version first, but I'd like diagrams.

So you're changing your story. 'g' from the FE is constant without regard to distance above the FE. If so, your model will be in serious trouble. Keeping the Sun aloft will be all but impossible.

I've rather given up on you and your timetables. It's going onto winter and still nothing on Rock City, TN, for example.

Yeah my timetables suck at times. 

I didn't change my story at all.  g from the FE is constant ignoring influences from the heavens, sub heavens, and local geographies.

If g was not constant, wouldn't it be easier to explain the sun being aloft?  Hrm.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 19, 2010, 09:29:39 AM

Quote from: Username on November 19, 2010, 09:21:33 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 16, 2010, 10:15:22 PM

Also if we accept Username's analysis of a finite 'g' for an infinite FE slab, then that model also predicts a uniform gravitation.

Incorrect.  This is only true if there is no other mass in the universe, and if the infinite fe slab is uniform - which obviously it is not.  The uniform version is an approximation.  I'll be posting the calculations for stability of a non-uniform version as soon as I get some time set aside to open up Maple, remember maple syntax, and then export to html.  I may do a handwritten version first, but I'd like diagrams.

So you're changing your story. 'g' from the FE is constant without regard to distance above the FE. If so, your model will be in serious trouble. Keeping the Sun aloft will be all but impossible.

I've rather given up on you and your timetables. It's going onto winter and still nothing on Rock City, TN, for example.

Yeah my timetables suck at times. 

I didn't change my story at all.  g from the FE is constant ignoring influences from the heavens, sub heavens, and local geographies.

If g was not constant, wouldn't it be easier to explain the sun being aloft?  Hrm.

Not only do you need g to vary, but to reduce by the inverse-square law. Otherwise, you've got basically no hope of balancing the forces to keep the Sun from hitting the infinite FE.

Here's what you posted before you changed your story, by the way:

Quote from: ClockTower on October 17, 2010, 11:48:19 AM

The infinite slab FET has a constant acceleration due to gravity (g). However, experiments, peer-reviewed, demonstrate that RE predictions of its reduction with altitude are accurate.

Please reference: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm.

Incorrect.