Ignorance.

Not to mention using gravity in place of gravitation is wrong entirely...It really has little to do with semantics. It's like saying toast when you mean bread.


~D-Draw

But toast is bread...

Quote from: Youreajoke on November 10, 2007, 11:45:00 PM

Regardless of the technicalities, gravity is what we recognize to be the cause of attraction of masses.

Hypothetically, and if you want to subscribe to poorly-educated science, go ahead and believe that you are magically being pulled towards the ground.

Poorly-educated? You don't understand the basics of gravity and you call others that? Gravity doesn't work via magic. 

Just because gravity was originally recognized as a force, doesn't mean we can't use the same word to describe the same phenomenon.

Actually...Gravitation and gravity are really quite different.
[/quote]

Different in that one is caused by the other. Gravity as a force doesn't exist but that is not relevant to discussing FE vs RE.
The existence of gravity still messes up FET. Although communicating the idea of gravity as a force isn't technically correct, the basis for the argument goes unchecked. Your attacking usage when you know the message's intent.

Gravity refers to a pseudo force.  Gravitation is not caused by gravity.  Gravitation is caused by the deformation of space. 

Gravity refers to a pseudo force.  Gravitation is not caused by gravity.  Gravitation is caused by the deformation of space. 

Still irrelevant. Terminology isn't the point. "Gravitation" (oooh look I used the right word) due to mass is. Graviy is used to refer to gravitation all the time.

"Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other." The point here is the problem with FE model and attraction of mass.

Quote from: Diego Draw, Tamer of Beasts on November 10, 2007, 11:58:58 PM

Quote from: Youreajoke on November 10, 2007, 11:45:00 PM

Regardless of the technicalities, gravity is what we recognize to be the cause of attraction of masses.

Hypothetically, and if you want to subscribe to poorly-educated science, go ahead and believe that you are magically being pulled towards the ground.

Poorly-educated? You don't understand the basics of gravity and you call others that? Gravity doesn't work via magic. 

Really now? Tell me then. How DOES it work, if not by magic?

As a sidenote, gravity pretty much messes up any science you want to believe in, regardless of the Earth's shape.

~D-Draw

Really now? Tell me then. How DOES it work, if not by magic?

Same way as gravitation 'works'.

As a sidenote, gravity pretty much messes up any science you want to believe in, regardless of the Earth's shape.

um no.
1. How does it mess up any science? OR How does it mess up anything?
2. "Science you want to believe in" 

Science is by definition, objective. Your biases and preconceived notion of FE just gives us further insight to your failures.

Quote from: Diego Draw, Tamer of Beasts on November 12, 2007, 12:41:07 PM

Really now? Tell me then. How DOES it work, if not by magic?

Same way as gravitation 'works'.

You didn't even answer my question. I know what it does, I want to know how it works.

Quote

As a sidenote, gravity pretty much messes up any science you want to believe in, regardless of the Earth's shape.

um no.
1. How does it mess up any science? OR How does it mess up anything?
2. "Science you want to believe in" 

Science is by definition, objective. Your biases and preconceived notion of FE just gives us further insight to your failures.

I'm biased? You think that two bodies of mass attract to each other for no apparent reason just because it holds your theories together.

~D-Draw

"Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other." The point here is the problem with FE model and attraction of mass.

So what about objects without mass?

such as your imfamous shadow object? I dont know of many objects without mass

Quote from: Yiak on November 12, 2007, 12:54:56 PM

Same way as gravitation 'works'.

You didn't even answer my question. I know what it does, I want to know how it works.

TheEngineer has posted many times regarding this. Spacetime curves. Objects follow geodesics and accelerate in certain directions.

Quote

Quote

As a sidenote, gravity pretty much messes up any science you want to believe in, regardless of the Earth's shape.

um no.
1. How does it mess up any science? OR How does it mess up anything?
2. "Science you want to believe in" 

Science is by definition, objective. Your biases and preconceived notion of FE just gives us further insight to your failures.

I'm biased? You think that two bodies of mass attract to each other for no apparent reason just because it holds your theories together.

~D-Draw

1. Gravitation is supported in FE theory.
2. You have yet to answer "How does it mess up any science?"
3. You are biased if you choose to believe in something rather than being brought to the conclusion from an objective stance. That's pretty much the definition, so yeah. You are.

Quote from: Yiak on November 12, 2007, 12:35:44 PM

"Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other." The point here is the problem with FE model and attraction of mass.

So what about objects without mass?

What about them?

such as your imfamous shadow object? I dont know of many objects without mass

Photons.  Gravitons.  Gluons.  Bosons.  Neutrinos.

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 12, 2007, 01:09:08 PM

Quote from: Yiak on November 12, 2007, 12:35:44 PM

"Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other." The point here is the problem with FE model and attraction of mass.

So what about objects without mass?

What about them?

Are they not affected by gravitation?

Quote

such as your imfamous shadow object? I dont know of many objects without mass

Photons.  Gravitons.  Gluons.  Bosons.  Neutrinos.

So objects without mass can follow geodesics too without warping spacetime themselves. Your point?

I don't believe I said exclusively objects with mass, or only objects with mass. Mass caused deformations. I have yet to see evidence that photons create their own gravitational field.

So objects without mass can follow geodesics too without warping spacetime themselves.

Uh, no, they also warp spacetime.

Quote from: Yiak on November 12, 2007, 01:18:30 PM

So objects without mass can follow geodesics too without warping spacetime themselves.

Uh, no, they also warp spacetime.

I didn't know that. please elaborate despite being off topic.

Did I just do that in another thread?

Spacetime is warped by three quantities:
Mass
Energy
Momentum

Light, for example, has two of the three components:
Energy
Momentum

Therefore, it will warp space.

Did I just do that in another thread?

Spacetime is warped by three quantities:
Mass
Energy
Momentum

Light, for example, has two of the three components:
Energy
Momentum

Therefore, it will warp space.

I didn't see this before, but cool. Thanx. 

I love when noobs get on claiming ignorance when they are to ignorant to even being to try to look up answers for themselves.. 

it's not that they can't find your "answers," it's that they make no sense.

Quote from: Jenova Cell on November 09, 2007, 11:29:06 AM

I love when noobs get on claiming ignorance when they are to ignorant to even being to try to look up answers for themselves.. 

it's not that they can't find your "answers," it's that they make no sense.

I am an RE'er but what makes no sense? I thought they did a nice job of BS-ing the FAQ.

in responce to the first post: FErs believe it is possible to circumnavigate the earth east-west, but you would actually be going in a HORIZONTAL circle.

but they say it's impossible to go around north-south, because you would fall off the "south edge". (they say the north pole is the center)
or be stopped by the "ice wall"...
or be stopped by "the conspiracy" before you reached the "ice wall"...

but you would actually be going in a HORIZONTAL circle.

ROFL. This guy is so entertaining, besides the fact that he purports all the FE beliefs.

First of all, if you tried to dig the earth either if it was round or flat you would die by the extreme heat on the core. in the faq it clearly says that the flat earth is still thick enough to have a core. but still an fe theory is as unclear as a RE

ask anyone who studies earthquakes if earth is round or flat.

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 15, 2007, 07:31:19 PM

but you would actually be going in a HORIZONTAL circle.

ROFL. This guy is so entertaining, besides the fact that he purports all the FE beliefs.

Circumnavigating the world requires going in a circle around the North pole in FE right? I don't see what's funny...

lots of people have crossed antarctica and reached the other side, without being stopped by an ice wall or "the conspiracy" or falling off the edge, DISPITE FErs' claims that it's impossible!

that's the point i meant to make...

ask anyone who studies earthquakes if earth is round or flat.

Earthquake phenomenas occurrences on a Flat Earth.

lots of people have crossed antarctica and reached the other side, without being stopped by an ice wall or "the conspiracy" or falling off the edge, DISPITE FErs' claims that it's impossible!

Really? Who did that?

Quote

ask anyone who studies earthquakes if earth is round or flat.

Earthquake phenomenas occurrences on a Flat Earth.

Yes they do. But seismic waves also reflect the shape of the Earth much like radar. I have asked this only to be told they were also conspirators.

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 16, 2007, 06:14:25 PM

lots of people have crossed antarctica and reached the other side, without being stopped by an ice wall or "the conspiracy" or falling off the edge, DISPITE FErs' claims that it's impossible!

Really? Who did that?

Your mum. No matter who we name, you will either discredit the action, or claim they are conspirators.

Quote

ask anyone who studies earthquakes if earth is round or flat.

Earthquake phenomenas occurrences on a Flat Earth.

In your mind, sure. But nobody who studies them would ever say that the earth is flat.

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 16, 2007, 06:14:25 PM

lots of people have crossed antarctica and reached the other side, without being stopped by an ice wall or "the conspiracy" or falling off the edge, DISPITE FErs' claims that it's impossible!

Really? Who did that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Steger
Crossed Antarctica on foot in the early 90's... There have been many people who have crossed it, and many more on top of that who have sailed around it. However, according to the FE map, that would be the longest distance in the world. Alas, it wasn't.