Re: ham sandwich

  • 56 Replies
  • 14376 Views
Re: Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2008, 07:51:40 PM »
Hello, I locked the ham sandwich thread because our logic was just too much for the fe'rs. Whenever we made a logig statement that could have proven that EVEY CLAIM made by fe-res was wrong, the responded in "read the FAQ" or something along those lines,
What logic? "NASA SHOWED ME DA PICTURES THEY ARE DA TRUTH."

And now the fe-rs have made another ham thread, and we've owned the fe-rs again?
So far all the RE'ers still haven't prven the earth is round/not flat.

I can feel gravity and I can see the roundness of the earth.
You can feel gravitation, which is caused by Universal Acceleration. You cannot see the roundness of the earth.

See where there is no logic in producing a stalemate. Only cold hard evidence besides subjective belief can prove a flat earth or round earth.
And no cold hard evidence was produced in the last thread.

And trust me, we have proof of a round earth. Just scroll upwards until you SEE a picture of it.
NASA propaganda is not proof.

So you lose and we win.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2008, 07:53:52 PM »
You have no idea man..  G constant has been measured quite well.
G has not been measured.  Ever.  It is a number that was made up in order to make the universe fit into the RE'ers model.

Quote
what you said about lights beams in a gravitational field is wrong.
What did he say about it that was wrong?

Quote
According to Einstein theory of Relativity space-time curvature (gravity)
Uh, no, that is not gravity.  Gravity is a pseudo force.

Quote
And gravitons are hypothetical.. General Relativity doesn't need them
Right, it just uses some hand waving and a little bit of magic.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2008, 07:56:41 PM »

Quote
And gravitons are hypothetical.. General Relativity doesn't need them
Right, it just uses some hand waving and a little bit of magic.


And FET doesn't?

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2008, 11:26:09 PM »
I can feel gravity and I can see the roundness of the earth.

According to Einstein you feel acceleration. You have a fake picture of a round earth. Woohoo! I saw a movie the other day with aliens in it -- does that prove Aliens exist?

Yes, yes it does. Infact, they are after us right this very minute.

Don't say I never warned you,,,

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2008, 01:02:46 AM »

Quote
And gravitons are hypothetical.. General Relativity doesn't need them
Right, it just uses some hand waving and a little bit of magic.


And FET doesn't?
It does.  But people seem to hold that against the FE, yet it is perfectly acceptable for the RE to do so.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2008, 11:21:01 AM »

BS1:G has not been measured.  Ever.  It is a number that was made up in order to make the universe fit into the RE'ers model.

BS2:What did he say about it that was wrong?

BS3:Uh, no, that is not gravity.  Gravity is a pseudo force.

Quote
And gravitons are hypothetical.. General Relativity doesn't need them

BS4:Right, it just uses some hand waving and a little bit of magic.

1).... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant .. oh.. perhaps Cavendish was part of the conspiracy!..

2)




Consider this thought experiment:
When you drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum, both objects fall at identical rates.  Identical.  Isn't it easier to simply state the objects are at rest and the Earth accelerates upward?

Gravity must propose to act on both objects with different forces according to their mass.

Gravity fails when you do the same test with a light beam (which has no mass)
.  But it has been proven that the accelerating Earth catches up with light beams.


3)Gravity is manifestation of space-time curvature. It's not a force, so what? didn't you understand what I've said? do you know what a force is? do you know what geodesic motion is?...

4)General Relativity is a classical (non-quantum) theory. Mass-energy curves space-time while matter moves according to space-time curvature. It is a field theory, hence graviton (particle that carries the interaction) is not needed.   



 




Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2008, 11:51:51 AM »
You have no idea man..  G constant has been measured quite well.

Quite well?  Thousands of times less accuracy than any other constant?  Contradictory measurements is quite well?  Still using pretty much the same accuracy as Cavendish's 1% precision measurement from the 17th century? ???


Here is what I said:
Quote
All attempts to measure gravitational constant G are highly inaccurate and often contradictory.

So your idiotic refutation is a wikipedia article which you must not have read because it states the same thing:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Further, published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Shit dude, read a link before you post it.

Quote from: Internet
The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.


« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 12:18:12 PM by lived_eht_asan »

Re: Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2008, 11:54:01 AM »
They don't "measure" it they measure everything else more accurately and then see what G comes out as.

Re: Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2008, 12:19:15 PM »
They don't "measure" it they measure everything else no more accurately and then see what G comes out as.

had to fix that.

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2008, 12:27:41 PM »
no i have another reason why i believe all hearts look like that. because my 6 year old cousin has a "Lets Play Doctor" toy kit and it comes with an x-ray thing and she put it on my chest (where my heart is) and thats the image that showed up.

all hearts look like the picture i posted.

If you want to come right out and make a comparison between your heart theory and flat earth, then come right out and say it (and then read my refutation again about why you are an idiot for doing this).

If you don't want to compare hearts to flat earth, then STFU and go find a forum about hearts.  Nobody wants to hear your shit here.


« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 12:30:28 PM by lived_eht_asan »

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2008, 02:56:54 PM »
1).... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant .. oh.. perhaps Cavendish was part of the conspiracy!..
Cavendish did not measure G.  No one has.  Ever.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65294
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2008, 08:41:38 AM »
I measured G once. It was big.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2008, 10:42:31 PM »
Hi people. G constant is a complicated subject ,that's right, but at the moment no experiment has ever shown that General Relativity (Newtonian Gravity if we are talking about ordinary objects) is wrong. How do you explain Cavendish and a lot of experiments that clearly show that massive bodies generate an attractive force (or pseudo-force in GR, phenomenologically speaking they are the same)? Are you telling me that every gravitational physicist is part of the conspiracy? I'm doing research on theoretical GR, so I will be soon part of this big conspiracy.. that's sounds good..

G is very difficult to measure due to the weakness of gravitational interaction between ordinary objects. Perhaps it is not exactly a constant (that is an interesting discussion regarding the possibility of  non-linear coupling in Newtonian approximation, or even a fifth force , and could be related to quantum gravity theories and brane cosmology) but we don't have enough evidence to believe in that, and every experiment we have performed so far has found G within that 1% of Cavendish. Actually, nowadays we can say (not everybody agree with this, but I do) that we have measurements of G to 0.15%. Could be much more accurate if we found systematic errors in some measurements (some scientists believe in  measurements to 0.01%). And I think that's quite well for such a complicated issue. Just tell me how come something that doesn't exist has been measured in a lot of different experiments whose uncertainties are less than 1% (the worst possible) (...idiotic refutation...)

Neverterless, we believe in gravity mainly because GM product (M gravitational mass) can be accurately measured (much more than G itself) for many celestial objects. The inverse square law (and its relativistic corrections) allows us to understand the motion of almost everything we can see in the sky...  And not only that, I just don't have enough free time to write everything down (think about black holes, pulsars, red-shift, cosmic microwave background, gravitational lens, stellar structure and so on…). Ok, many data has been collected by NASA. But it is not only NASA.. Perhaps you are suggesting that every observatory around the world is part of the conspiracy... 

Could be GR wrong? Yes, it could be wrong. For example if we don't measure gravitational waves  would mean that we need another theory.  Would that mean gravity doesn't work as a concept to understand reality? Of course not, it has helped us to understand many things. But I'm open-minded, so if someone formulates a theory explaining all this stuff without gravity (a rigorous and mathematical theory, not just a bunch of assumptions) I would listen to them and consider they may are right.....         

Of course existence of gravity alone doesn't directly imply RE. But... Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify some misconceptions that I found in this forum ...

Sorry for my English once again..

Cheers

 

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2008, 10:46:17 PM »
Quote
ow do you explain Cavendish and a lot of experiments that clearly show that massive bodies generate an attractive force (or pseudo-force in GR, phenomenologically speaking they are the same)?

TheEngineer, a mechanical engineer and aircraft pilot who posts on these forums, already debunked the Cavendish Experiment.

In a thread not too long ago TheEngineer had this to say about a recent "Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--

    There seems to me, to be some unexplainable things going on in the experiments.  The second video shows a large return of the balance after it contacts the weights.  Just from looking at the video and using an estimate of the angle and time using the stamp on the video, I've made a liberal estimate of the velocity when it makes contact with the weights.  This will result in a certain kinetic energy at the moment of impact.  Assuming a perfectly elastic collision (again, very liberal), the total energy must be conserved, so that the potential energy gained by the masses must equal the kinetic energy.  Using a simple equation, I've found the gravitational attraction of the weights and masses.  Using the kinetic energy as the maximum potential energy and solving for the distance that the mass can travel, I've found the rebound angle to be 0.126 degrees, not the nearly 30 that is shown in the video.  However, there is also a water brake which should damp this small movement, making the video highly suspect.

    Now, as I have said, I've made assumptions and simplifications (as it's late, I'm tired and I'm not getting paid for this), and those have been on the larger side of things.

    Perhaps I will do an in depth analysis of this if I get bored.

    BTW, it is stated on Wiki:

    "Bending Spacetime in the Basement (do-it-yourself Cavendish apparatus - appears to be seriously flawed[1])"

Ergo we see that at least this particular instance of the Cavendish experiment is flawed. Each and every one of us can personally observe in the demonstration videos that gravity does not act in the way predicted by Round Earth science.

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2008, 11:17:15 PM »
Are you telling me that every gravitational physicist is part of the conspiracy?

Don't be silly.  The first thing people do is claim flat earth is impossible because everyone would have to be in on the conspiracy.  The is basically argumentum ad populum.  At best a small handful of the people are in on the conspiracy (unlike religion).

  • Perhaps it is not exactly a constant
  • or even a fifth force
  • and could be related to quantum gravity theories and brane cosmology
  • but we don't have enough evidence to believe in that
  • not everybody agree with this, but I do

Thank you for confirming my point so perfectly.

The accelerating Earth model works quite well, thanks.  It is simple and elegant: There exists a universal accelerator (UA) accelerating the earth and universe linearly upward at 9.81 m/s/s.

As far as predicting the motions of celestial bodies...  the Mayans predicted them quite well.  Kepler predicted them extraordinarily well by appealing to Platonic Solids and infantile myths like the Golden Proportion.  When Newton's law of gravity happened to coincide with Kepler's laws, this was mainly because it was derived from the same relations.  The law of gravity is a computational object whose output is celestial prediction.  As a computational object it seems to work quite well.  Doesn't mean there is any inherent truth in it.

Flat Earth Theory will catch up at computational objects eventually.
 

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2008, 05:13:17 AM »
G is very difficult to measure due to the weakness of gravitational interaction between ordinary objects.
Once again, G has never been measured.  It has been assumed.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2008, 07:19:06 AM »
G is very difficult to measure due to the weakness of gravitational interaction between ordinary objects.
Once again, G has never been measured.  It has been assumed.


Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2008, 07:20:54 AM »
Funny.

 ;D

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43163
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #48 on: June 03, 2008, 10:07:41 AM »
Quote
ow do you explain Cavendish and a lot of experiments that clearly show that massive bodies generate an attractive force (or pseudo-force in GR, phenomenologically speaking they are the same)?

TheEngineer, a mechanical engineer and aircraft pilot who posts on these forums, already debunked the Cavendish Experiment.

In a thread not too long ago TheEngineer had this to say about a recent "Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--

TheEngineer commented on a home brew version on Cavendish.  I don't recall him ever debunking Cavendish as a whole.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 10:09:17 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2008, 10:15:21 AM »
Are you telling me that every gravitational physicist is part of the conspiracy?

blah blah

  • Perhaps it is not exactly a constant
  • or even a fifth force
  • and could be related to quantum gravity theories and brane cosmology
  • but we don't have enough evidence to believe in that - I was talking about nonconstancy of G you fool
  • not everybody agree with this, but I do - talking about those 0.15% measurements.. damn, every real scientist believes   in gravity

Thank you for confirming my point so perfectly.

The accelerating Earth model works quite well, thanks.  It is simple and elegant: There exists a universal accelerator (UA) accelerating the earth and universe linearly upward at 9.81 m/s/s.

As far as predicting the motions of celestial bodies...  the Mayans predicted them quite well.  Kepler predicted them extraordinarily well by appealing to Platonic Solids and infantile myths like the Golden Proportion.  When Newton's law of gravity happened to coincide with Kepler's laws, this was mainly because it was derived from the same relations.  The law of gravity is a computational object whose output is celestial prediction.  As a computational object it seems to work quite well.  Doesn't mean there is any inherent truth in it.

Flat Earth Theory will catch up at computational objects eventually.
 

ah ok.. I'm waiting for a proper FE celestial mechanics,..

once again:


How do you explain Cavendish and a lot of experiments that clearly show that massive bodies generate an attractive force (or pseudo-force in GR, phenomenologically speaking they are the same)?



Neverterless, we believe in gravity mainly because GM product (M gravitational mass) can be accurately measured (much more than G itself) for many celestial objects. The inverse square law (and its relativistic corrections) allows us to understand the motion of almost everything we can see in the sky...  And not only that, I just don't have enough free time to write everything down (think about black holes, pulsars, red-shift, cosmic microwave background, gravitational lens, stellar structure and so on…).
 

GR is elegant for me.. Not just an assumption that can't mathematically explain tides, variation of g,and everthing that I pointed out above  .. UA needs a very nonelegant universe: one with an absolute frame of reference. Probably you don't understand what a AFR is... UA at the moment has no rigorous formulation, hence...   

   


Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2008, 12:33:15 PM »
blah blah blah

 Probably you don't understand what a AFR is... UA at the moment has no rigorous formulation, hence...   

Arrogance.  Pretty sure you don't understand what AFR is since we don't require it.  And at the moment, you've had millennia of processing power applied to generate your computational object.  These computational objects work like evolution.  Evolution isn't necessarily "correct" but given enough time and spread in parallel across enough organisms, something will be found which works.

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #51 on: June 05, 2008, 01:40:37 PM »

Hello..  You're just trolling lived_eht_asan...
Anyway, an UA and flat earth must accelerate with the entire known universe upwards because stars, sun and everything in the sky is just a few thousands miles above (according to FE'rs). So, perhaps you think that outside that strange universe there are unobservable very distant objects that define what accelerated motion is (just to avoid the existence of an special frame of reference).. But I'm not a FE'r, so you should tell me. I'm curious.. 

Cosmologist do create odd universes, but more appealing ones..

Cheers 

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #52 on: June 05, 2008, 02:04:11 PM »

Hello..  You're just trolling lived_eht_asan...
Anyway, an UA and flat earth must accelerate with the entire known universe upwards because stars, sun and everything in the sky is just a few thousands miles above (according to FE'rs). So, perhaps you think that outside that strange universe there are unobservable very distant objects that define what accelerated motion is (just to avoid the existence of an special frame of reference).. But I'm not a FE'r, so you should tell me. I'm curious.. 

Cosmologist do create odd universes, but more appealing ones..

Cheers 


There is no need to define it any more than we are moving 9.81 m/s faster than we were a second ago.  It is clear, simple, and elegant.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #53 on: June 05, 2008, 09:10:16 PM »
Cosmologist do create odd universes, but more appealing ones..
Cosmologists attempt to view galaxies within our known universe, they do not create them, you fuckwit.

Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #54 on: June 06, 2008, 11:47:36 PM »

It was a fucking irony.. what a moron!

By the way, it's perfectly clear that you don't know what cosmologists do...

Re: Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #55 on: June 07, 2008, 02:35:32 AM »
I was going to make a ham sandwich because of this thread, but all i had was pastrami.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: ham sandwich
« Reply #56 on: June 07, 2008, 04:51:15 AM »

It was a fucking irony.. what a moron!

By the way, it's perfectly clear that you don't know what cosmologists do...
Just click here and stfu.