Shooting Star

well as it is indeed a rock from space then it must disprove ua. problem solved.

Perhaps if it is "flakes" from the canopy, the canopy is not affected by the UA, but is held in place by its own structural integrity.

Perhaps if it is "flakes" from the canopy, the canopy is not affected by the UA, but is held in place by its own structural integrity.

im sory but ur theorys make no sense what so ever perhaps you should go away and try figure things out a bit befor continuing

Perhaps if it is "flakes" from the canopy, the canopy is not affected by the UA, but is held in place by its own structural integrity.

Structurally attached to the Earth I take it?  It has to be rising too.

also, how does the horizontal path across the sky occur?  aether eddy/cross current?

Perhaps if it is "flakes" from the canopy, the canopy is not affected by the UA, but is held in place by its own structural integrity.

Lets pretend for a second that the idea of a canopy apparently made of rock covering the entire earth isn't completely retarded and say if this where the case, wouldn't meteors fall straight down perpendicular to the ground instead of coming in at an angle as they all seem to do.

Occasionally a fragment of the earth on the rim is loosened by UA and shot upwards. A shooting star is simply this material falling back to earth.

Doesn't the UA accelerate everything upwards at exactly 9.81m/s^2. Why would it make a single piece of rock suddenly take off ahead of the earth.

is the canopy fixed, or spinning?

i haven't seen much discussion of this.

relative motion to the earth disc might cause an apparent shallower angle of descent

is the canopy fixed, or spinning?

i haven't seen much discussion of this.

relative motion to the earth disc might cause an apparent shallower angle of descent

Interesting idea. I always assumed that the canopy was spinning, with the planets on a different set of celestial gears.

[/quote]
Too bad the early Romans had a working mechanism over 2000 years ago. Kinda shoots holes in your statement, eh?
[/quote]

Actually no, that kinda shoots holes in your statement. Basing your information and evidence off of a 2000 year old model is not something many would consider very reliable. Do you also believe in Zeus? Modern science has allowed us to accurately test hypothesis' regarding the shape of the earth which we inhabit among other things, this means we no longer need to make random guesses as the Romans once did.

I've never seen so many backwards ass country fucks in my life! 

Can you elaborate on this?

I've never seen so many backwards ass country fucks in my life! 

Have you seen a shooting star?