Acceleration rate.

The acceleration of the Earth is 9.8m/sē, flat or round, accelerating of gravitating, it's still 9.8m/sē to both models.

In the FE model, all of the Universe must be accelerating at 9.8m/sē since we can always see the same celestial objects in the sky.

But, how come have we calculated that Mars has an "acceleration" rate of 0.38G, or 3.69 m/sē? (Source : Wikipedia)

your mixing gravity with the acceleration rate.


they're different things explaining the same occurence. us staying on the surface of the earth.

it goes up as the same rate as everything else. otherwise it would fly away or crash into the earth. seems obvious to me.

your mixing gravity with the acceleration rate.


they're different things explaining the same occurence. us staying on the surface of the earth.

it goes up as the same rate as everything else. otherwise it would fly away or crash into the earth. seems obvious to me.

I don't see how could gravity + acceleration rate could give something lower than the actual acceleration rate.

The only gravity that is possible to be produced on Mars is the one that can be produced by Mars' revolution "around" Earth or Sun. And this one cannot be negative since the gravity clearly attracts Mars to the center of gravity of Earth or Sun.

So I don't see how could 9.8m/sē + x m/sē = 3.69m/sē, considering that x cannot be negative, because of what I explained above.

you ever been to mars? how do you know there is gravity there?

you ever been to mars? how do you know there is gravity there?

Another pathetic FEer that changes his mind right away when a REer shows him how he's wrong.

NASA went there, satellites from other countries went there also and they were all attracted in the orbit of Mars by its gravity.

Next  :arrow:.

the FE'ers say they are fake. how do you know they're not?

the FE'ers say they are fake. how do you know they're not?

Because he first admitted that gravity exists. When I showed him that he was wrong, he changed his mind in order to be "right".

Next. :arrow:

What makes you think he's an FE?

What evidence do you have that Mars has a lower rate of acceleration? What makes you think Mars cannot have a gravitational field if Earth doesn't? What makes you think Mars and Earth are both planets? What makes you think Earth shares the same physical properties as Mars?

What makes you think he's an FE?

What does it change if he's a FE or not ?

It means that his opinion may not represent that of the FE theory.

What evidence do you have that Mars has a lower rate of acceleration? What makes you think Mars cannot have a gravitational field if Earth doesn't? What makes you think Mars and Earth are both planets? What makes you think Earth shares the same physical properties as Mars?

1. One of the greatest spatial agencies in the world calculated it on ground.

2. I said that it must have one.

3. WTF ? Are you serious ?

4. Since Universe being cannot arbitrary decide which objects have which fundamental properties. All objects have the same fundamental properties, which includes gravity.

It means that his opinion may not represent that of the FE theory.

That is the reason of my :

Next. :arrow:

1. One of the greatest spatial agencies in the world calculated it on ground.

Do you have any evidence that they actually calculated it? Or are you just taking what they said as fact?

3. WTF ? Are you serious ?

Quite serious. What evidence do you have that Earth and Mars are both the same thing? (Planets)

4. Since Universe being cannot arbitrary decide which objects have which fundamental properties. All objects have the same fundamental properties, which includes gravity.

Can you actually prove this? Or is it just an assumption?

Keep in mind that I am simply curious to know how you came to these conclusions, and am by no means trying to attack your theory.

Quote from: "yop69g"

1. One of the greatest spatial agencies in the world calculated it on ground.

Do you have any evidence that they actually calculated it? Or are you just taking what they said as fact?

NASA experimented on Mars with the robot they sent recently, maybe before with the calculation of the attraction force when being in orbit. Do you have any evidence that they didn't calculate it ?

Quote

3. WTF ? Are you serious ?

Quite serious. What evidence do you have that Earth and Mars ar both the same thing?

Hmm... all astronomers say that I'm right.

4. Since Universe being cannot arbitrary decide which objects have which fundamental properties. All objects have the same fundamental properties, which includes gravity.

Can you actually prove this? Or is it just an assumption?[/quote]
If gravity doesn't exist, how do you explain my initial post ?

Oh maybe it's that you can't explain it that you're getting away of it... as FEers use to do.

NASA experimented on Mars with the robot they sent recently, maybe before with the calculation of the attraction force when being in orbit. Do you have any evidence that they didn't calculate it ?

No, I have no evidence that they didn't. I also have no reason to believe that they did, either.

Hmm... all astronomers say that I'm right.

This is an argument from authority Yop. You know better than that.

If gravity doesn't exist, how do you explain my initial post ?

I did not say gravity doesn't exist. I said simply that Earth does not posses a gravitational field. Obviously the effects we feel as "gravity" exist. It is simply the cause of these effects that is under question.

Quote from: "yop69g"

NASA experimented on Mars with the robot they sent recently, maybe before with the calculation of the attraction force when being in orbit. Do you have any evidence that they didn't calculate it ?

No, I have no evidence that they didn't. I also have no reason to believe that they did, either.

What are your evidence that they didn't ? The conspiracy I guess ? You don't have any evidence that there's a conspiracy. Nor I have any evidence to prove that there isn't

Hmm... all astronomers say that I'm right.

This is an argument from authority Yop. You know better than that.[/quote]
A bad argument from authority is when the authority is not, in fact, an authority that has to do with the subject. No one's more concerned by celestial objects than astronomers.

If gravity doesn't exist, how do you explain my initial post ?

I did not say gravity doesn't exist. I said simply that Earth does not posses a gravitational field. Obviously the effects we feel as "gravity" exist. It is simply the cause of these effects that is under question.[/quote]
You really didn't catch up what my thread was about.

What are your evidence that they didn't ? The conspiracy I guess ? You don't have any evidence that there's a conspiracy. Nor I have any evidence to prove that there isn't

Doesn't that make the point somewhat irrelevant?

A bad argument from authority is when the authority is not, in fact, an authority that has to do with the subject. No one's more concerned by celestial objects than astronomers.

There is no good or bad argument from authority Yop. It is a fallacious argument based on the assumption that a person or group of people are an authority on the subject, so they must be right. Clicky

Quote

A bad argument from authority is when the authority is not, in fact, an authority that has to do with the subject. No one's more concerned by celestial objects than astronomers.

There is no good or bad argument from authority Yop. It is a fallacious argument based on the assumption that a person or group of people are an authority on the subject, so they must be right.

"It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regards to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source."

Credibility of the source, credibility of the source, credibility of the source.

If astronomers aren't credible enough in matters of astronomy, then who is ?

The fallacy does not lie in saying that astronomers are good sources of information on matters relating to astronomy. The fallacy lies in implying that your claim is valid simply because astronomers say it is. Anyone can be wrong. In order to prove your argument you have to find evidence supporting it.

Even we FE's use the same fallacy every time we say "Einstein agrees with us" on matters relating to relativity.

The fallacy does not lie in saying that astronomers are good sources of information on matters relating to astronomy. The fallacy lies in implying that your claim is valid simply because astronomers say it is. Anyone can be wrong. In order to prove your argument you have to find evidence supporting it.

Even we FE's use the same fallacy every time we say "Einstein agrees with us" on matters relating to relativity.

I'm losing my time with you since you know as I do that Mars is a planet.

That's ridiculous.

Yop, the point is this: do you have any reasoning other than that people told you so for any of your beliefs, such as your belief that the Earth is round, that Mars has a lower surface gravity than the earth, etc.? If not, kindly stop arguing it, as you will never convince anyone of anything, and have no business even debating the issue. If so, then please provide the reasoning, or else don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.