Gravity (again)

  • 32 Replies
  • 5471 Views
Gravity (again)
« on: March 01, 2007, 11:23:53 AM »
WHat I have gotten from this site:

1. WHat physics says about gravity is wrong. Only the Equivalence Principle is true.
2. Earth has no gravity.
3. The moon and stars have gravity, albeit, the universal law of gravity doesn't apply. So no Fg=G((m1m2)/r2). It is a lie or not true, or whatever.
4. The sun and moon don't orbit. They just move. Apparently Chuck Norris is pushing them?
5. Most of what astronomers claim is false.

AM I wrong?
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2007, 11:55:20 AM »
WHat I have gotten from this site:

1. WHat physics says about gravity is wrong. Only the Equivalence Principle is true.
2. Earth has no gravity.
3. The moon and stars have gravity, albeit, the universal law of gravity doesn't apply. So no Fg=G((m1m2)/r2). It is a lie or not true, or whatever.
4. The sun and moon don't orbit. They just move. Apparently Chuck Norris is pushing them?
5. Most of what astronomers claim is false.

AM I wrong?


Sounds good to me.  But it's really pissing me off how FE'ers wont give an answer for #4.  Or do you have one from them?  Maybe something from Tom?

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2007, 12:05:15 PM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2007, 12:46:58 PM »
Chuck Norris isn't pushing the sun. Mr. T is constantly pitying it out of stationary position. But chuck norris doesnt even have to touch the moon, he just hates it. It runs away on it's own accord.



But seriously, I have never ever seen an answer to why the sun and moon move. Apparently they 'just do', just like the earth 'just was' formed in a way dissimilar to the entire rest of the universe.
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2007, 02:09:09 PM »
Chuck Norris isn't pushing the sun. Mr. T is constantly pitying it out of stationary position. But chuck norris doesnt even have to touch the moon, he just hates it. It runs away on it's own accord.



But seriously, I have never ever seen an answer to why the sun and moon move. Apparently they 'just do', just like the earth 'just was' formed in a way dissimilar to the entire rest of the universe.

That's the beauty of dark energy, an unobservable force with unlimited potential.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2007, 12:04:42 PM »
I'll give a thumb's up to anyone who knows who my picture is.

Hint 1: Not me.
Hint 2: Conspiracy
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2007, 11:30:42 AM »
Ahem.
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2007, 01:20:44 PM »
I'll give a thumb's up to anyone who knows who my picture is.

Hint 1: Not me.
Hint 2: Conspiracy

Conspiracy..... that could be ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i may as well just list the entire world population ,minus the FE'ers, in alphabetical order. ill eventually get it.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2007, 02:42:55 PM »
Ahem.

Is it someone from nasa? someone from the government? the person who first claimed the earth was round/"proved" it?

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2007, 03:22:38 PM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
The atmosphere ripples a little bit, so the sun and moon sort of follow the grooves of the atmosphere. I wasn't the first one to come up with this idea, either. I think it was Dogplatter originally.

~D-Draw

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2007, 03:24:47 PM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
The atmosphere ripples a little bit, so the sun and moon sort of follow the grooves of the atmosphere. I wasn't the first one to come up with this idea, either. I think it was Dogplatter originally.

~D-Draw

Show proof of this. I can pull crap from my ass too. The sun follows magical particles I like to call magicalelctriomagnetonsns, this is what makes it move.
Quote
In FE Literature there are three celestial bodies that inhabit the sky. The Sun. The Moon. And the Shadow Object.
Quote
You have performed an illegal operation. Tom Bishop will now shut down, you will lose all unsaved arguments.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2007, 03:49:17 PM »
Magicalelctriomagnetonsns are just Pseudo-particles.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2007, 03:50:21 PM »
They are given off my the magical shadow object that blocks the moon but not stars!!!
Quote
In FE Literature there are three celestial bodies that inhabit the sky. The Sun. The Moon. And the Shadow Object.
Quote
You have performed an illegal operation. Tom Bishop will now shut down, you will lose all unsaved arguments.

*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2007, 03:58:39 PM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
Hmm, but they say the atmosphere is 150 ft high (because it's kept from flying from earth by the ice wall), and the FAQ says they're 3000 miles away (correct me if I'm wrong here), so that explanation creates a contradiction.
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2007, 05:09:21 PM »
Well, the FES is a contradiction-toward normal people

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2007, 07:16:03 AM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
Hmm, but they say the atmosphere is 150 ft high (because it's kept from flying from earth by the ice wall), and the FAQ says they're 3000 miles away (correct me if I'm wrong here), so that explanation creates a contradiction.

Seems to be. Maybe the FEers haven't read the FAQ.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2007, 08:12:32 AM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
Hmm, but they say the atmosphere is 150 ft high (because it's kept from flying from earth by the ice wall), and the FAQ says they're 3000 miles away (correct me if I'm wrong here), so that explanation creates a contradiction.

Seems to be. Maybe the FEers haven't read the FAQ.

Please refer to Earth: Not a globe

There you shall find the answers you seek

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2007, 08:29:04 AM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
The atmosphere ripples a little bit, so the sun and moon sort of follow the grooves of the atmosphere. I wasn't the first one to come up with this idea, either. I think it was Dogplatter originally.

~D-Draw

Oh, really?
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2007, 08:30:01 AM »
FE theory can follow the groove of my arse.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2007, 08:43:28 AM »
FE theory can follow the groove of my arse.


Liar!

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2007, 08:47:31 AM »
I think it was DiegoDraw who said the sun sits on the atmosphere of the earth or something. Doesn't 'splain how it moves though.
The atmosphere ripples a little bit, so the sun and moon sort of follow the grooves of the atmosphere. I wasn't the first one to come up with this idea, either. I think it was Dogplatter originally.

~D-Draw

What I get from this is FE'ers have a reason for why the sun/moon move in patterns, but not why they move in general.  Question's still waiting to be answered about WHAT MAKES THEM MOVE.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2007, 09:57:55 AM »
Ive said this already, ill say it again this time but next time please use the search button


The earth is moved by chuck norris's farts

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2007, 09:58:41 AM »
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2007, 09:59:59 AM »
Dont argue with me u cheeky bastard, your posts may be longer then mine but mine contain the truth!

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2007, 10:54:52 AM »
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

I'm not reading all of that.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2007, 10:56:40 AM »
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

EIRD is right. This is far to long and no one wants to read it. Please shorten.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2007, 12:10:59 PM »
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

EIRD is right. This is far to long and no one wants to read it. Please shorten.

Whoever that person was just copied and pasted that response in a bunch of different threads. It has some alright explanations, but there are like two gramatical errors. Which is three too many.

In other news, the questions put forth at the beginning of this thread have not been answered.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2007, 12:47:46 PM »
I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

EIRD is right. This is far to long and no one wants to read it. Please shorten.

thats what i fukin said... lol

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2007, 03:51:56 PM »
I thought it was a good post that covered lots of different bases. Shame it will fall on deaf ears.

Re: Gravity (again)
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2007, 04:28:18 PM »
I'll give a thumb's up to anyone who knows who my picture is.

Hint 1: Not me.
Hint 2: Conspiracy

Michael Griffin!! I WIN