My Problem with Universal Acceleration

Honestly TG, I still don't see his error in the initial postings.  I stand by what I said earlier.

I still laugh at that stupidity.

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 22, 2007, 09:05:38 PM

...  You can't circumnavigate the earth by going south, in either model.

There are many satellites, in polar orbits, that according to RE circumnavigate the globe by going south.

I still laugh at that stupidity.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 22, 2007, 10:42:27 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 22, 2007, 09:05:38 PM

...  You can't circumnavigate the earth by going south, in either model.

There are many satellites, in polar orbits, that according to RE circumnavigate the globe by going south.

Then answer me this question:

True or False: There been at least one satellite that has circumnavigated the globe and has gone south in doing so.

I still laugh at this stupidity.

True or False: There been at least one satellite that has circumnavigated the globe and has gone south in doing so.

It started out going south maybe, but it obviously can't travel south the whole time and circumnavigate the globe.

True or False: There been at least one satellite that has circumnavigated the globe and has gone south in doing so.

I have to cry a little every time I read the dumbing down of the Queen's English.

Oh sweet, sweet irony.

I still laugh at this brilliance.

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 19, 2007, 03:47:41 PM

Fixed

Quote from: Gulliver on August 24, 2007, 09:45:14 PM

I still laugh at this brilliance.

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 19, 2007, 03:47:41 PM

Fixed

Umm maybe if you ignore the errors.  Wait nope, still not. 

Sokarul, don't tell me you didn't at least give a girlish giggle when you read what that stick figure guy was saying.  I quite liked that bit.

Sokarul, don't tell me you didn't at least give a girlish giggle when you read what that stick figure guy was saying.  I quite liked that bit.

Nope,  becuase one of the things wrong is what he is saying. 

Quote from: CommonCents on August 24, 2007, 09:51:19 PM

Sokarul, don't tell me you didn't at least give a girlish giggle when you read what that stick figure guy was saying.  I quite liked that bit.

Nope,  becuase on of the things wrong is what he is saying. 

I'm starting to get tired of translating what you say...

Quote from: Gulliver on August 24, 2007, 09:43:54 PM

True or False: There been at least one satellite that has circumnavigated the globe and has gone south in doing so.

It started out going south maybe, but it obviously can't travel south the whole time and circumnavigate the globe.

So? Did I say that it did?

Quote from: sokarul on August 24, 2007, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: CommonCents on August 24, 2007, 09:51:19 PM

Sokarul, don't tell me you didn't at least give a girlish giggle when you read what that stick figure guy was saying.  I quite liked that bit.

Nope,  becuase on of the things wrong is what he is saying. 

I'm starting to get tired of translating what you say...

Omgzor one letter.  I'm doing more than just typing on here.  Maybe I should boycott the letter "c" and then replace it with a "k".  

Maybe I should boycott the letter "c" and then replace it with a "k". 

That would be a step down for you. =/

Quote from: sokarul on August 24, 2007, 09:55:31 PM

Maybe I should boycott the letter "c" and then replace it with a "k". 

That would be a step down for you. =/

Agreed.

So? Did I say that it did?

Nope, I was just stating.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 24, 2007, 09:54:55 PM

So? Did I say that it did?

Nope, I was just stating.

Thanks.

Quote from: CommonCents on August 24, 2007, 09:53:38 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 24, 2007, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: CommonCents on August 24, 2007, 09:51:19 PM

Sokarul, don't tell me you didn't at least give a girlish giggle when you read what that stick figure guy was saying.  I quite liked that bit.

Nope,  becuase on of the things wrong is what he is saying. 

I'm starting to get tired of translating what you say...

Omgzor one letter.  I'm doing more than just typing on here.  Maybe I should boycott the letter "c" and then replace it with a "k". 

I thought Rentakow was grounded by his mommie, this rendering him unable to aKKess the internets?

Shouldn't there be a ring, instead of 4 spots?

Quote from: Lorcan on August 24, 2007, 06:05:14 PM

Shouldn't there be a ring, instead of 4 spots?

no

Quote from: Lorcan on August 24, 2007, 06:05:14 PM

Quote

The universal accelerator, as far as I know (and as far as I can be expected to know, as I've seen nothing suggesting otherwise on this forum) has no theoretical framework or mathematical model. It does not explain phenomena not occurring on Earth, and in fact is in conflict with what we observe in space. Gravity offers explanations for the orbits of moons around the planets, the orbits of satellites around our own planet, the orbits of the planets around the Sun, the movement of comets through the solar system, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshifting, gravitational time dilation, an endless amount of events observed in deep space, as well as all phenomena on our own planet that FE suggests is explained by the UA. The UA only offers an explanation for what is observed on Earth, and relies on an unfounded concept to do so.

Why did you forget this part?

I did not forget that part. As you can see I put that part in italics. This was to indicate where I was finally referring to things on Earth (the exception from the rest of the content), not previously addressed in my post. When you cut out the excerpt "gravitational lensing, gravitational redshifting and gravitational time dilation" it was taken from the context of being in outer space, with the "as well as..." part being in addition to that - i.e. all of these outer space phenomena in addition to phenomena on Earth. You were responding to the outer space phenomena.

Although, even if I had been referring to these gravitational effects on Earth, lensing would be the only one to slightly be explained by the EP (stretching the use of the term "gravitational lensing"). Redshifting and time dilation as measured on Earth, through those experiments I mentioned, would not be explained by the EP. I've made this much clear.

Quote from: Lorcan on August 24, 2007, 06:05:14 PM

But there then remained the problem of how the UA accounted for redshifts and time dilation.

Like I said before, equally accounted for by acceleration.  For those of you that like to argue: It accounts for the effects of the RE!  As in the effects due to the 'gravity' of the RE. 

I've gone over this multiple times, this is incorrect. Very, very incorrect on so many levels. I don't know why you keep saying it, because no amount of repetition will make it any more true.

Acceleration cannot account for these effects due to the gravity of the RE. To beat a dead horse, the gravity of the RE is non-uniform, something absolutely necessary for redshifts and time dilation to be measured on our planet. Acceleration creates a uniform gravity effect. Since you insist your position is correct, please offer an insight as to how the uniform gravity effect of acceleration duplicates the results that are only obtainable in a non-uniform gravitational field. This surpasses all known physics, so your explanation could be very valuable.

And before you get started, remember the EP doesn't apply.

Well, like I said last time you asked:

Clocks displaced along the vector (or its negative) will experience time dilation.

A light beam will undergo shifting when there is acceleration relative to the observer and emitter.

But wouldn't its shifting only result in one direction?

But wouldn't its shifting only result in one direction?

Obviously.  The FE only accelerates in one direction.  Although, some effects will still be seen if there is a component of motion in that direction.

wait, hold on. 

Ok since you claim to be a master of physics.  Why are you using a non-inertial FOR for special relativity? 

Ok since you claim to be a master of physics.  Why are you using an non-inertial FOR for special relativity? 

that is how he is correct

Ok since you claim to be a master of physics.  Why are you using an non-inertial FOR for special relativity? 

You can alter the acceleration so that one can use a NIFoR in SR. 

This thread is still going on?

*yawn*