Satellites, and the False information they provide

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 27, 2007, 02:48:37 PM

Quote from: cwolfe on December 27, 2007, 02:45:51 PM

You would rather trust in an undetectable Dark Energy than an easily detectable Universal Gravitation?

You have detected gravitation?  That's a pretty neat trick.  So, when did you discover the graviton?  Last time I checked, we could only detect gravitation's effect on stuff.

Oh OK, so thats how it goes. So the gravitron must be discovered in a particle accelerator for you to accept gravitation. OK, wait for a few years, and watch. Just like many particles were discovered AFTER they were predicted. At any rate, the mere non-discovery of the gravitron is merely proof that the gravitron is a pain in the ass to find, just like the Higg's boson. It doesn't mean universal gravitation is wrong. How do you explain twin stars? More conspiracy?

For what seems like the millionth time, using the Cavendish Experiment.  You get the exact same inverse-square law of gravitation that Newton used to derive Kepler's empirical laws.

I don't detect any gravitation in that experiment.

Oh OK, so thats how it goes. So the gravitron must be discovered in a particle accelerator for you to accept gravitation. OK, wait for a few years, and watch. Just like many particles were discovered AFTER they were predicted. At any rate, the mere non-discovery of the gravitron is merely proof that the gravitron is a pain in the ass to find, just like the Higg's boson. It doesn't mean universal gravitation is wrong. How do you explain twin stars? More conspiracy?

So you can detect an amusement ride in a particle accelerator?

Oh OK, so thats how it goes. So the gravitron must be discovered in a particle accelerator for you to accept gravitation.

When did I say that?  Hell, when did I say I didn't accept gravitation?

Quote from: fshy94 on December 27, 2007, 02:54:57 PM

Oh OK, so thats how it goes. So the gravitron must be discovered in a particle accelerator for you to accept gravitation. OK, wait for a few years, and watch. Just like many particles were discovered AFTER they were predicted. At any rate, the mere non-discovery of the gravitron is merely proof that the gravitron is a pain in the ass to find, just like the Higg's boson. It doesn't mean universal gravitation is wrong. How do you explain twin stars? More conspiracy?

So you can detect an amusement ride in a particle accelerator?

That's my favorite amusement park ride ever.  EVER.

If you accept universal gravitation, engy(you don't me calling you that for speed, do you?), why are we talking about it? If you accept it and merely didn't like his choice of words, you knew what he meant and you were just nitpicking.

He claimed to be able to detect it.  I claimed you could only detect its effects on other objects.  That was the heart of his argument.  Which, is moot.

Oh, I must have missed that part. Well, strictly speaking, yes, but as with magnetism, you can't detect it itself, you detect its effects. It still renders the same thing really.

So your point is moot.  Glad we agree.

But you make the claim that there IS no inverse-square law, am I right?

In addition, is there ANYTHING you can directly detect in the universe?  You don't "feel" something, you feel the electromagnetic force the atoms in your hand exert against the the atoms in the object you're touching.  You don't "see" anything, you merely see the light reflecting and radiating from objects.  And you don't "hear" anything, your ears are merely vibrated by pressure waves in the surrounding air.

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 27, 2007, 02:53:52 PM

So your point is moot.  Glad we agree.

But you make the claim that there IS no inverse-square law, am I right?

No.

You don't "see" anything, you merely see the light reflecting and radiating from objects.

Uh, what?

He is right. By the strictest definition, one cannot measure anything directly. Think about the computer in front of you. You feel the effects of the keyboards electromagnetic resistance, and you see photons that reflect back to you. You don't really see it, just the effects of it.

I'm pretty sure I see photons.

Well, no. The membranes on your eyes translate a photon strike into an electrical impulse(think transistors on a computer), that your brain decodes to mentally convert into what you think is a bit of light. Its just easier to talk about seeing a photon. So what you saw(an electrical impulse) was actually the effect of the photon. Get me?

Right, my optical sensors saw a photon. 

Exactly! But you(strictly defined as your brain), did not directly observe said photon.

So now you are changing the argument.  That's a typical RE'er.

Now, how about we get back on topic?

I apologize for going off topic, but that's the way threads go on the internet. It happens to every forum. Or do you think that threads never go off topic when FE'ers are involved, eh?

Quote from: cwolfe on December 27, 2007, 03:11:20 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 27, 2007, 02:53:52 PM

So your point is moot.  Glad we agree.

But you make the claim that there IS no inverse-square law, am I right?

No.

Okay, how do you reckon the inverse-square law in a universe where the Earth is flat with a tiny sun and moon floating almost directly above it, and stars only 3000 miles away?

On the FE, gravitation is generated by our perpetual constant acceleration.

On the FE, gravitation is generated by our perpetual constant acceleration.

But that's not an inverse square law.  If the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s, then all other objects will experience a constant acceleration in the opposite direction.  It won't decrease as the square of the distance.

Right.

On the FE, gravitation is generated by our perpetual constant acceleration.

And the slight, but very real, decrease in measured gravitation at higher elevations on this perpetually accelerating FE is caused by _________.

What goes in the blank?

We all know that RE has an explanation for this. From a purely scientific perspective when two theories oppose one another the theory which is able to offer more explanations and predictions for physical phenomena is considered the better theory. This is especially true when this theory is able to offer more elegant solutions that agree with our observations that aren't limited to our front yard. Just a thought.

So now you are changing the argument.  That's a typical RE'er.

Now, how about we get back on topic?

I laughed so hard at this one I almost had a heart attack

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

What goes in the blank?

Well, according to Tom's model, the celestial bodies.