An Ignored Issue?

I was missing your point (or your point has changed...).  Irregardless, I understand what you're talking about, and I have thought about it sometime before.  We just don't know what is down there well enough.  Be it rock or unobtainium, the evidence (that we are accelerated by the Earth, and not the UA) shows that the UA field is absorbed or deflected by this layer of material.  We are behind this "bow shock" created by the deflection which keeps us outside the influence of the UA. 

Let us call this pocket we live in the Terrapause. 

Antiphysics.  Good thing you dont go to Mines. 

Define antiphysics and how it applies to what I said.  I think you only say that because you didn't learn about such things in physics 200. 

I no longer go to Mines, it's true. 

Define antiphysics and how it applies to what I said.  I think you only say that because you didn't learn about such things in physics 200. 

I no longer go to Mines, it's true. 

I go to Metro.  I do not believe you went to Mines. 

The UA in itself goes against physics.  A universal accelerator that is able to be stopped by an inch of a substance or the bottom of the Earth yet it is universal?  Where does the infinite energy come from to accelerate things? Energy inst created or destroyed.   

Just for clarification: You do agree that the UA would be invisible? 

lol. I think its hilarious how you believe in the heliopause even though this was found by the evil conspirators at NASA. 

lol. I think its hilarious how you believe in the heliopause even though this was found by the evil conspirators at NASA. 

Didn't say I believed it.  You assume too much, my friend. 

We can't see the UA, so I have no reason to believe it is directly visible. 

I go to Metro.  I do not believe you went to Mines. 

The UA in itself goes against physics.  A universal accelerator that is able to be stopped by an inch of a substance or the bottom of the Earth yet it is universal?  Where does the infinite energy come from to accelerate things? Energy inst created or destroyed.   

I can tell you more than enough about my socially retarded school to make you crap your pants. 

The UA is stopped by an inch of substance? 

You are using the name "universal" too strictly.  It's a name used to identify a phenomenon.  Similar to words like parkway / driveway; reiterate (why do you have to 're' do something that is already repeated? It's just redundant).  I could go on. 

Where does the infinite energy of gravity come from?  It is, after all, continuously accelerating everything; where does that energy come from?  It's the same as the UA in that sense. 

Quote from: EvilToothpaste on April 02, 2007, 10:46:30 AM

Define antiphysics and how it applies to what I said.  I think you only say that because you didn't learn about such things in physics 200. 

I no longer go to Mines, it's true. 

I go to Metro.  I do not believe you went to Mines. 

The UA in itself goes against physics.  A universal accelerator that is able to be stopped by an inch of a substance or the bottom of the Earth yet it is universal?  Where does the infinite energy come from to accelerate things? Energy inst created or destroyed.   

Basically they dont know and just pull shit from their ass.

Didn't say I believed it.  You assume too much, my friend.

I must agree I have a tendency to do that. 
Perhaps my train of thought was concluding that properties of such a phenomenon could be applied to other things only if they were interpreted as reliable sources. Come to think of it, I suppose this is not necessary as you were merely comparing them. 

I must agree I have a tendency to do that. 
Perhaps my train of thought was concluding that properties of such a phenomenon could be applied to other things only if they were interpreted as reliable sources.

Any reasonable person will admit he makes this err.  We are all fools, it's just that some of us know it and some of us don't. 

One should not drag the assumptions of some conclusion along with its underlying theory.  The ideas behind the heliopause are completely independent of the assumption of a round Earth.  If one makes a different situational assumption, a different conclusion must be drawn -- even given the same scientific phenomena. 

A great example of this is Eratosthenes' famous experiment. Eratos already believed the Earth was round and used this assumption to calculate the circumference of the Earth.  If we make a different assumption -- that the Earth is flat -- then a completely different mathematical conclusion emerges: the distance between the Earth and the Sun. 

The science Eratos used was not wrong but merely his assumptions were wrong. 

Quote from: L0gic on April 03, 2007, 05:06:23 PM

I must agree I have a tendency to do that. 
Perhaps my train of thought was concluding that properties of such a phenomenon could be applied to other things only if they were interpreted as reliable sources.

Any reasonable person will admit he makes this err.  We are all fools, it's just that some of us know it and some of us don't. 

One should not drag the assumptions of some conclusion along with its underlying theory.  The ideas behind the heliopause are completely independent of the assumption of a round Earth.  If one makes a different situational assumption, a different conclusion must be drawn -- even given the same scientific phenomena. 

A great example of this is Eratosthenes' famous experiment. Eratos already believed the Earth was round and used this assumption to calculate the circumference of the Earth.  If we make a different assumption -- that the Earth is flat -- then a completely different mathematical conclusion emerges: the distance between the Earth and the Sun. 

The science Eratos used was not wrong but merely his assumptions were wrong. 

My assumption was your references of reality. I have yet to confuse facts underlying the principles of the Round or Flat Earth models. 

My assumption was your references of reality. I have yet to confuse facts underlying the principles of the Round or Flat Earth models. 

Well, I don't know about that, but I didn't name you in my last post.  I didn't single anyone out.  Now i will though:  Sokarul and NooBs. 

Excuse me for skipping the bulk of this thread and only addressing the OP, I'm basically just going through all these "unresolved" posts to make a point in another thread.

Anyway:

By disregarding gravity, you don't disregard simple laws about pressure and inertia. Put very simply, if 3 pieces of matter, a, b and c are stacked with a at the bottom and c at the top against an impenetrable blanket of matter which is pushing them upwards at an accelerating rate, c will be squashed only by the squashing power of b, b will be squashed by the squashing power of a and the added squash of c's squashage, and a will be the most squashed because it is squashed by the squashing power of the blanket as well as the compound squashage of b and c. I would have thought this was so fundamentally obvious as to not warrant explanation.