Universal Acceleration instead of Gravity

Quote from: rottingroom on August 22, 2013, 04:33:11 AM

Just because you don't like the numbers it doesn't make it wrong. It's pretty simple.

No, its incorrectness makes it wrong. :/

Quote

...  ...This gives you Earths current speed if it were constantly accelerating since Earth began. The number would be beyond even the astronomically impressive speed of light.

That's not the proper way to add velocities. It is an approximation that only works at low relativistic velocities.

Quote

If you think that is the wrong equation then go back to school.

It appears I know more about the subject than you. :/

Not incorrect. You can show me why it is incorrect instead of just stating it. Your implication proves nothing.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 08:09:43 AM

Pretty sure we've been through this already, but let's go down it again...   That the main emission of light from the sun matches the emission of light from the elements supposedly in it, yet they aren't actually in there? 

Are you confusing the emission spectra with absorption spectra?

I admit a rather rudimentary understanding of spectrography.  The point stands that the emission of light by the sun matches with it's supposed main composition of hydrogen.  That is to say, it doesn't emit light in a matching absorbtion spectrum of hydrogen.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 08:09:43 AM

Why aren't they in contact with UA?

Because they are in contact with the earth...   

Sorry, that means nothing unless you care to elaborate.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 08:09:43 AM

I'm afraid I asked you first, so go ahead.  We could do that all day, but it comes down to the fact that my side has hundreds if not thousands of people attempting to find it as we speak, while your side simply says, 'We don't know and neither do you, so we're even and we don't have to try and figure it out.' 

I don't know. I said that. Moreover, what I said specifically was "How could I know?"  If you have a way to determine that answer, please inform me.

That's your problem, not mine.  I'm not the one claiming UA even exists when another force, observed in other instances, can very easily substitute for it.

I don't give a tinker's damn if the orthodoxy ever figures out dark energy; in fact, I do not think they can. I only brought it up to show the absurd hypocrisy of your parallel.

What do you want me to say?  You're right to disbelieve dark energy and dark matter, as of yet.  It hasn't been proven conclusively, all that's been proven is that something is causing phenomena which haven't been explained otherwise.  There are those with higher educations working day in and day out to either prove or disprove both, or to come up with a better hypothesis that fits with observed facts, however.  Something that can't be said of UA.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 08:09:43 AM

A hypothetical cause is needed, and one that can be tested as proven or disproven at some point, as it will be regarded as unproven until it is.

Again, I have no idea what it could be or how it could be tested.  What is the disprovable theory of dark energy so far? There isn't one. I freely admit UA is a placeholder. I've done it a score of times or more. We know nothing other than that it happens.

Would you like to know the difference between dark energy and UA?  The main one, not the obvious differences in characteristics.  Dark energy hasn't got an alternative explanation yet, much less one that explains anything better.  UA does have a better alternate explanation, and the same and it's implications explain more with less assumptions.

Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 11:41:00 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on August 22, 2013, 04:33:11 AM

Just because you don't like the numbers it doesn't make it wrong. It's pretty simple.

No, its incorrectness makes it wrong. :/

Quote

...  ...This gives you Earths current speed if it were constantly accelerating since Earth began. The number would be beyond even the astronomically impressive speed of light.

That's not the proper way to add velocities. It is an approximation that only works at low relativistic velocities.

Quote

If you think that is the wrong equation then go back to school.

It appears I know more about the subject than you. :/

Not incorrect. You can show me why it is incorrect instead of just stating it. Your implication proves nothing.

Google relativistic velocity addition. Or perhaps one of your fellow globularists can help you. You don't believe anything I say anyway. Take the first step to educate yourself. I cannot spoon feed you all day while you belligerently tell me I need to go back to school. Take your fingers out of your ears, and then come back if you'd like to discuss it.

Pyro, I'm on my way out shortly -- I'm not sure I have time to address your post without sounding glib. I'll try to answer it later tonight or tomorrow depending on my mental state.

Pyro, I'm on my way out shortly -- I'm not sure I have time to address your post without sounding glib. I'll try to answer it later tonight or tomorrow depending on my mental state.

Take as long as you like, and say it however you like so long as it's clear.  Honestly, all I care is that good points are made, not so much how they're made.

Quote from: rottingroom on August 24, 2013, 02:59:51 PM

Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 11:41:00 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on August 22, 2013, 04:33:11 AM

Just because you don't like the numbers it doesn't make it wrong. It's pretty simple.

No, its incorrectness makes it wrong. :/

Quote

...  ...This gives you Earths current speed if it were constantly accelerating since Earth began. The number would be beyond even the astronomically impressive speed of light.

That's not the proper way to add velocities. It is an approximation that only works at low relativistic velocities.

Quote

If you think that is the wrong equation then go back to school.

It appears I know more about the subject than you. :/

Not incorrect. You can show me why it is incorrect instead of just stating it. Your implication proves nothing.

Google relativistic velocity addition. Or perhaps one of your fellow globularists can help you. You don't believe anything I say anyway. Take the first step to educate yourself. I cannot spoon feed you all day while you belligerently tell me I need to go back to school. Take your fingers out of your ears, and then come back if you'd like to discuss it.

Pyro, I'm on my way out shortly -- I'm not sure I have time to address your post without sounding glib. I'll try to answer it later tonight or tomorrow depending on my mental state.

such a cop out. You might as well have said "lurk moar!"

Okay, lurk moar then. Or use the search function and find one of the myriad of other threads on the subject where angry and arrogant globularists actually learned something.

I admit a rather rudimentary understanding of spectrography.  The point stands that the emission of light by the sun matches with it's supposed main composition of hydrogen.  That is to say, it doesn't emit light in a matching absorbtion spectrum of hydrogen.

The absorption lines only show that there is a great deal of hydrogen in between the source of light and the observer. Hardly surprising as hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe.

Would you like to know the difference between dark energy and UA?  The main one, not the obvious differences in characteristics.  Dark energy hasn't got an alternative explanation yet, much less one that explains anything better.  UA does have a better alternate explanation, and the same and it's implications explain more with less assumptions.

I fail to see how any alternate explanation is a better alternative than UA.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 03:18:29 PM

I admit a rather rudimentary understanding of spectrography.  The point stands that the emission of light by the sun matches with it's supposed main composition of hydrogen.  That is to say, it doesn't emit light in a matching absorbtion spectrum of hydrogen.

The absorption lines only show that there is a great deal of hydrogen in between the source of light and the observer. Hardly surprising as hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe.

Here, how's this.  You have an example of light being emitted by anything other than matter, or antimatter although it isn't relevant in this case?  If you do, I'll concede that the sun isn't made of matter.  Until you do, light is exclusively a product of matter, and as such anything producing light is to be considered mater until proven otherwise.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 03:18:29 PM

Would you like to know the difference between dark energy and UA?  The main one, not the obvious differences in characteristics.  Dark energy hasn't got an alternative explanation yet, much less one that explains anything better.  UA does have a better alternate explanation, and the same and it's implications explain more with less assumptions.

I fail to see how any alternate explanation is a better alternative than UA.

Beside the fact that gravity also explains orbit, how matter in the universe formed as it has today, how the sun and other stars are what they are, how we have elements denser than lithium, why black holes exist and how they could form, and several other things as a result of the same thing causing us to stick to the surface of the Earth?  The fact that the same force accounts for a great many things, and is also consistent with what we experience and observe in nearly all cases?  If you have alternatives that don't fall victim to special pleading, please present them.  As of yet, all that can be said of UA is that it could hypothetically work but it can't be proven, it doesn't even remotely explain as much as gravity can and does, and in the only competing area with gravity it explains the phenomena more poorly than gravity itself.

Points you ignored:

Quote from: Ski on August 24, 2013, 02:26:25 PM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 08:09:43 AM

Why aren't they in contact with UA?

Because they are in contact with the earth...   

Sorry, that means nothing unless you care to elaborate.

Quote from: Ski on August 24, 2013, 02:26:25 PM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 24, 2013, 08:09:43 AM

I'm afraid I asked you first, so go ahead.  We could do that all day, but it comes down to the fact that my side has hundreds if not thousands of people attempting to find it as we speak, while your side simply says, 'We don't know and neither do you, so we're even and we don't have to try and figure it out.' 

I don't know. I said that. Moreover, what I said specifically was "How could I know?"  If you have a way to determine that answer, please inform me.

That's your problem, not mine.  I'm not the one claiming UA even exists when another force, observed in other instances, can very easily substitute for it.

I'm particularly curious on the first one.

Here, how's this.  You have an example of light being emitted by anything other than matter, or antimatter although it isn't relevant in this case?  If you do, I'll concede that the sun isn't made of matter.  Until you do, light is exclusively a product of matter, and as such anything producing light is to be considered mater until proven otherwise.

Yeah, it'd be a shame if we introduced a completely hypothetical construct to address the unknown (gravity, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, baryogenesis, gravitons, sleptons, etc)

As of yet, all that can be said of UA is that it could hypothetically work but it can't be proven, it doesn't even remotely explain as much as gravity can and does, and in the only competing area with gravity it explains the phenomena more poorly than gravity itself.

You mean it's not understood so unsatisfying to you? Much like gravity itself? The only difference in the phenomena is the pulpit you are hearing it from.

Points you ignored:

I didn't ignore them. The explanation of the first has been covered dozens of times, and the second was a "so what" statement that didn't really need a response from me.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 26, 2013, 09:56:36 PM

Here, how's this.  You have an example of light being emitted by anything other than matter, or antimatter although it isn't relevant in this case?  If you do, I'll concede that the sun isn't made of matter.  Until you do, light is exclusively a product of matter, and as such anything producing light is to be considered mater until proven otherwise.

Yeah, it'd be a shame if we introduced a completely hypothetical construct to address the unknown (gravity, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, baryogenesis, gravitons, sleptons, etc)

Gravity is easily proven, and it's behaviour is also.  Dark matter, dark energy, and gravitons are all hypothetical, and aren't regarded as fact, but a possible explanation that best fits observations.  Baryogenesis and sleptons are entirely unrelated to the topic at hand, so irrelevant, but either are still only hypothetical predictions rather than fact and are regarded as such in most cases.  String theory is neither a theory, nor the only hypothesis, and isn't regarded as factual due to it's incomplete and unproven nature.  All of these either have no sufficient alternate answer or aren't regarded as fact, in most cases both.  Light coming from the sun and the sun exhibiting a force consistent with gravity, quite easily does.  The sun is made of matter, and subject to the same effects as Earth, gravity included.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 26, 2013, 09:56:36 PM

As of yet, all that can be said of UA is that it could hypothetically work but it can't be proven, it doesn't even remotely explain as much as gravity can and does, and in the only competing area with gravity it explains the phenomena more poorly than gravity itself.

You mean it's not understood so unsatisfying to you? Much like gravity itself? The only difference in the phenomena is the pulpit you are hearing it from.

Not really.  UA fails to explain the seeming attraction to the surface of Earth as well as gravity.  If UA doesn't explain at least one thing better than gravity, it's an inferior hypothesis, regardless of how well it's understood.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 26, 2013, 09:56:36 PM

Points you ignored:

I didn't ignore them. The explanation of the first has been covered dozens of times, and the second was a "so what" statement that didn't really need a response from me.

Can I hear the explanation to the first?  Because I've yet to.

Gravity is easily proven, and it's behaviour is also. 

Silly me, I thought it was still the theory of relativity. Perhaps they updated this to a law, and I just didn't get the memo. Please explain the mechanism of "gravity" for us.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 27, 2013, 08:06:35 AM

Gravity is easily proven, and it's behaviour is also. 

Silly me, I thought it was still the theory of relativity. Perhaps they updated this to a law, and I just didn't get the memo. Please explain the mechanism of "gravity" for us.

Sure thing, which hypothetical explanation do you want?  Quantum mechanical, of which there are many, or General Relativity, which is generally regarded as wrong but still factual because of the presence of force carrying particles for every other force?  Because, with it being the Scientific Theory of General Relativity, it's around as factual as the structure of atoms and the Germ Theory of Disease.

Also:

Quote from: Ski on August 27, 2013, 07:28:34 AM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 26, 2013, 09:56:36 PM

Here, how's this.  You have an example of light being emitted by anything other than matter, or antimatter although it isn't relevant in this case?  If you do, I'll concede that the sun isn't made of matter.  Until you do, light is exclusively a product of matter, and as such anything producing light is to be considered mater until proven otherwise.

Yeah, it'd be a shame if we introduced a completely hypothetical construct to address the unknown (gravity, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, baryogenesis, gravitons, sleptons, etc)

All of these either have no sufficient alternate answer or aren't regarded as fact, in most cases both.  Light coming from the sun and the sun exhibiting a force consistent with gravity, quite easily does.  The sun is made of matter, and subject to the same effects as Earth, gravity included.

Quote from: Ski on August 27, 2013, 07:28:34 AM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 26, 2013, 09:56:36 PM

As of yet, all that can be said of UA is that it could hypothetically work but it can't be proven, it doesn't even remotely explain as much as gravity can and does, and in the only competing area with gravity it explains the phenomena more poorly than gravity itself.

You mean it's not understood so unsatisfying to you? Much like gravity itself? The only difference in the phenomena is the pulpit you are hearing it from.

Not really.  UA fails to explain the seeming attraction to the surface of Earth as well as gravity.  If UA doesn't explain at least one thing better than gravity, it's an inferior hypothesis, regardless of how well it's understood.

Quote from: Ski on August 27, 2013, 07:28:34 AM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 26, 2013, 09:56:36 PM

Points you ignored:

I didn't ignore them. The explanation of the first has been covered dozens of times, and the second was a "so what" statement that didn't really need a response from me.

Can I hear the explanation to the first?  Because I've yet to.