M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

Fire away people!

As the population increases, the weight of the earth as a whole (including all of its contents) would increase.

So the planet cannot accelerate upward at a constant rate due to it gaining weight, yet the upward force remaining constant.

Explain.

Thanks.

BTW I proved your sig Matrix.  See thread.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 15, 2008, 04:24:56 PM

BTW I proved your sig Matrix.  See thread.

You haven't proved mine.

a partial ironised metal has an altered affect on the metals surface area distribution.

DE leaches onto the negative charges dispelled during the "change over affect" the earths magnets also disrupt some of the signals thus decreasing acceleration.

My friend who has great knowledge in science taught me this however the source of this has since been closed down due to supression by the NASA and the government.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 15, 2008, 10:31:50 AM

Quote from: physics101 on September 15, 2008, 10:29:43 AM

It's simple enough, x=a/h. See, no numbers needed.

That doesn't solve the actual equation.  I say that x cannot equal a divided by h.  Prove me wrong.

So when you said you'd disproved my sig in this thread, what you actually meant was you'd decided you'd completely failed and just thought you'd drag me back in to tell you again?  Well, ok, if that's what floats your boat...

x = a/h was defined.  If you don't believe that it's the correct definition, then fine, you can do what you were talking about and test it with numbers. If the relationship was arrived at through pure theoretical derivation, however, that doesn't make it invalid.  Maybe x = a/h is the result of a proof that cannot be refuted theoretically.  It's still maths.  You're confusing pure maths with applied maths, or maths with physics.  You're also confusing proving me wrong with being an utter failure.

Abort, Retry, Wardogg.

Quote from: Matrix on September 16, 2008, 01:20:49 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 15, 2008, 10:31:50 AM

Quote from: physics101 on September 15, 2008, 10:29:43 AM

It's simple enough, x=a/h. See, no numbers needed.

That doesn't solve the actual equation.  I say that x cannot equal a divided by h.  Prove me wrong.

So when you said you'd disproved my sig in this thread, what you actually meant was you'd decided you'd completely failed and just thought you'd drag me back in to tell you again?  Well, ok, if that's what floats your boat...

x = a/h was defined.  If you don't believe that it's the correct definition, then fine, you can do what you were talking about and test it with numbers. If the relationship was arrived at through pure theoretical derivation, however, that doesn't make it invalid.  Maybe x = a/h is the result of a proof that cannot be refuted theoretically.  It's still maths.  You're confusing pure maths with applied maths, or maths with physics.  You're also confusing proving me wrong with being an utter failure.

lrn2quote

Also you fail.  You can't prove the equation without the numbers.  IE the math part.

Light is not conveyed by protons?  What are you smoking?  Protons are the essence of light.  If protons didn't exist we wouldn't have light.  Seriously dude where have you been learning all this crap.

Nothing can accelerate at at constant rate: Rate means speed, and the idea of a constant speed specifically means not accelerating.

Quote from: globesphere93 on September 16, 2008, 02:17:47 PM

Nothing can accelerate at at constant rate: Rate means speed, and the idea of a constant speed specifically means not accelerating.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 11, 2008, 11:51:14 PM

Light is not conveyed by protons?  What are you smoking?  Protons are the essence of light.  If protons didn't exist we wouldn't have light.  Seriously dude where have you been learning all this crap.

It might have been a troll, but it's still good stuff.

I know, it was funny wasn't it?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 16, 2008, 08:18:01 PM

I know, it was funny wasn't it?

Or, you know, maybe you were just confused between the two, blew your bubbles when you wrote the post, and then tried to claim it as "trolling" to cover your tracks.

But it seams if you where to jump from a plane over FE that you would fall back to the planet at a max speed of 1g since FE is accelerating upward at 1g.

Okay number one nothing every came from something number two Something like a big ball of mass ....triggering the universe is stupid. For instance umm how would it trigger why and when? all your stating is a theory. Its now been proven then every peice of matter in its simpless form and down to its foundation beyond Electrons neutrons and protons are quarts and beyond that its Soundwaves. So the Bible states in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. And God Said Let there be light ....LOL this was written over 2000 years ago if you will study the so called big bang theroy the first thing scientist say exsisted at the boom was LIGHT ...LOL kinda funny. You know that Light is simply a form of Sound that has Speed up.  So as far as the personal God part LOL ya he has it all planed out the whole bible written far beyond all our modern things Actually shows the world round. Shows us Things all the time even today about medicine. For instance the Jews were told by God to never eat pork....no one understood why until now we find they are one of the worse animals to eat..they cause deases and many other issues. Yet the Bible simple calls unclean...Even today stuff in bible is happening. For instance in the Book of Daniel in the Bible it talks about a Roman empire being build agian...guess what the European union is ...LOL it only has two or three countries to include and it will be as it is in the Book of Revelations...Also all the Prophecies about Jesus in the Old testament was written 1000 years or more in some cases before his comeing and Boom here he has fullfilled them all some beyond his control. Like his blood line where he would live where he would be born ..even how he would Die strips on his back and peirced hands and feet. I happen to know God he talks all the time just most people don't stop to listen. And fact is most people are afraid to listen. Second I have seen healings and I have seen angels with my owen eyes. I have seen the future and even told people and it happen...yes there are prophets ...Jesus when he left said he left the church Prophets Teachers Pastors Evanglist and the Apostile...Unfortunately Only they that SEEK the truth with and open mind can find it. The bible is the only book that Says God wrote it to you...number two its the only Religon that the book says TEST ME>!  TEST GOD>!   Why is Christainity diffrent from every other Religon well its not a Religon its a RELATIONSHIP. There is scripture for all this. You don't get to heaven by works like everyone and every religon claims you get there by beleiving on Jesus Christ that he loved you died for your sins and rose agian that you could have eternal life. Go read Gensis and then God read the Gospels Mathew Mark Luke John. Jesus Claimed to be God in Human form. His disciples even died for him. Which simples means Either Life has a purpose or we should just blow up the whole planet cause we are wasting space time and there isn't a reason to be here>>>So is there a reason or not? Find that one out. Cause I have already found it. Nothing in heaven or Earth or even in Hell or all creation can Seperate me from the Love of MY and ONLY True God Jesus Christ.    " I am the Way, The Truth, and the Life no man comes to the father but by ME>" Jesus Christ.

You know that Light is simply a form of Sound that has Speed up.

I prefer this one.  Now I am going to have to choose which of my sigs goes.

Quote

You know that Light is simply a form of Sound that has Speed up.

f'(y(t))² = c²/y'(t)² - 1

Therefore:

f'(y(t)) = (c/y'(t) + 1)

or

f'(y(t)) = (c/y'(t) - 1)

Quote from: Aesop on September 15, 2008, 05:02:24 PM

f'(y(t))² = c²/y'(t)² - 1

Therefore:

f'(y(t)) = (c/y'(t) + 1)

or

f'(y(t)) = (c/y'(t) - 1)

Quote from: Aesop on September 15, 2008, 05:02:24 PM

f'(y(t))² = c²/y'(t)² - 1

Therefore:

f'(y(t)) = (c/y'(t) + 1)

or

f'(y(t)) = (c/y'(t) - 1)

I'm not sure it would fit.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.