Explain me these two words

  • 133 Replies
  • 26105 Views
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #120 on: September 19, 2008, 02:54:19 AM »
Quoted for the new page...

I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

Learn about adding speeds with relativity. The constant acceleration of 9.8m/s2 is only from our frame of reference. We don't have any meaningful velocity.
Doesn't the earth, heavens, and everything else in our reference frame need to be accelerating either towards or away from something though? If there's nothing else in our reference frame than those points I mentioned, and those points mentioned don't have any meaningful velocity, how can they have meaningful acceleration? Don't you need another point of reference for that?


I had another argument with a weather balloon that went up to the edge of the atmosphere planned, but it finally sunk in what you've all been hammering into me. It was my assumption that things on the UA-FE would share the upward acceleration of the Earth. That's not the case right?

Some things like the galaxies near us, the sun, the moon, the stars, the planets and other stellar bodies, and all their associated gears share the UA of the FE, right? It's just the little things that touch the earth, like water, air, rocks, and people that are just along for the ride.



I can understand that now, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why some bodies are influenced by whatever force is doing the upward accelerating, and others aren't is vague, or I missed it in my reading. I want to clarify a few things before I make any assertions.

Are smaller bodies less influenced by the UA and larger bodies more influenced?

Are the bodies resting on the earth intrinsically different from the earth in some way that could be realistically measured? The earths crust can be said to be mostly rock, but if I pick up a rock, does it take on properties different from the crustal earth that my lifting removed it from?

I'll wait for some citation from FE or RE proponents before arguing this further though, since I missed the point so horribly in my last posts. The argument I'm looking for is why UA would affect the things above us, and the things below us, but not affect the things within that frame of reference.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #121 on: September 19, 2008, 03:01:20 AM »
lol @ adding together two different units.
Yeah, I had a little brain fart.

Can you cite any reference for a "dark energy field" that extends beyond this site? Lacking that can you cite what "TheEngineer" said that made you a believer of his dark energy theory?
Go to search and type "DEF". It should give you some quotes relating to that.

I believe the theory because I think it's more reasonable than believing that the ice wall holds the atmolayer. Plus, DEF comes from the DE (the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration) due to bow shock, making it a relevant theory. The DEF is one of the effects of DE, which is as reasonable as gravitation is the effect of space-time curvature.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #122 on: September 19, 2008, 03:08:02 AM »
Here is one of his old explanation on DEF.

The Dark Energy Field is a vector field.  It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer.  The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer.  These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space.  This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #123 on: September 19, 2008, 03:28:52 AM »
Here is one of his old explanation on DEF.

The Dark Energy Field is a vector field.  It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer.  The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer.  These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space.  This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.
Those forces would still produce a planar force though. They would top it off but you'd still need walls to keep the atmolayer in. I would require TheEngineer to show proof of the more in-depth applications of his theory before I'd believe any interactions of his theory with the 4'th dimension.

I believe the theory because I think it's more reasonable than believing that the ice wall holds the atmolayer. Plus, DEF comes from the DE (the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration) due to bow shock, making it a relevant theory. The DEF is one of the effects of DE, which is as reasonable as gravitation is the effect of space-time curvature.

For RE dynamics I could disregard Einsteins dynamics and go back to Newtonian dynamics with no noticeable loss on my end. As long as I did'nt try to track mercury to 1/600th of a degree of error per year or some shit I would be fine. If it's your assertion you could do the same for FET with dark energy dynamics, fine. It's not my job to judge... I think you're wrong though. Your DEF dynamics sound fabricated, even by FET standards.

Plus, do all FE'ers think dark energy is the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 03:48:52 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #124 on: September 19, 2008, 03:56:35 AM »
Those forces would still produce a planar force though. They would top it off but you'd still need walls to keep the atmolayer in.
That was just an explanation of the DEF's structure. The walls are not needed. The DEF forms a shape similar to a bow shock in front of the FE, acting as a lid for everything inside.

For RE dynamics I could disregard Einsteins dynamics and go back to Newtonian dynamics with no noticeable loss on my end.  As long as I did'nt try to track mercury to 1/600th of a degree of error per year or some shit I would be fine.
What noticeable loss?

If it's your assertion you could do the same for FET with dark energy dynamics, fine. It's not my job to judge... I think you're wrong though. Your DEF dynamics sound fabricated, even by FET standards.
It's way more reasonable than believing a gigantic ice wall holding the atmolayer. The current DEF is taken from the concepts of aerodynamics, where DE encounters an obstacle (Earth) and forms a "bow shock" in front of it. Perfectly reasonable. Plus, that wall can't even shield us from the effects of DE.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #125 on: September 19, 2008, 04:41:56 AM »
Those forces would still produce a planar force though. They would top it off but you'd still need walls to keep the atmolayer in.
That was just an explanation of the DEF's structure. The walls are not needed. The DEF forms a shape similar to a bow shock in front of the FE, acting as a lid for everything inside.

For RE dynamics I could disregard Einsteins dynamics and go back to Newtonian dynamics with no noticeable loss on my end.  As long as I did'nt try to track mercury to 1/600th of a degree of error per year or some shit I would be fine.
What noticeable loss?
Don't worry about it... It's not important.

If it's your assertion you could do the same for FET with dark energy dynamics, fine. It's not my job to judge... I think you're wrong though. Your DEF dynamics sound fabricated, even by FET standards.
It's way more reasonable than believing a gigantic ice wall holding the atmolayer. The current DEF is taken from the concepts of aerodynamics, where DE encounters an obstacle (Earth) and forms a "bow shock" in front of it. Perfectly reasonable. Plus, that wall can't even shield us from the effects of DE.
I've grown used to FET and FE dynamics, but you and "TheEngineer" are just plain nuts... I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #126 on: September 19, 2008, 04:47:02 AM »
I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...

Dark energy is not mutually exclusive.  If you research it you will see that modern accepted RE science incorporates it as well.  The mechanics of it are still a mystery.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #127 on: September 19, 2008, 04:56:27 AM »
I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...

Dark energy is not mutually exclusive.  If you research it you will see that modern accepted RE science incorporates it as well.  The mechanics of it are still a mystery.

Does modern accepted RE science say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in? Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in? I reserve judgment for now.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #128 on: September 19, 2008, 05:04:10 AM »
Does modern accepted RE science say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

No, but they do think it is the mechanism for accelerated universal expansion, which in FET would keep the atmosphere in.

Quote
Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

If you mean accelerating the earth, thereby keeping the atmosphere in, then yes.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #129 on: September 19, 2008, 05:32:32 AM »
Does modern accepted RE science say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

No, but they do think it is the mechanism for accelerated universal expansion, which in FET would keep the atmosphere in.

Quote
Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

If you mean accelerating the earth, thereby keeping the atmosphere in, then yes.
#1 If the DEF is the force forming a bow shape above the earth, it can't realistically also be the force driving acceleration. You're giving your force unrealistic and almost godlike status.

#2 You're just one voice, and not many are speaking up for you. FET can survive without DEF dynamics, and will actually do better without them. They're ridiculous really. The only thing DEF dynamics are good at is explaining why the atmosphere has an ionosphere and a lesser charged particle layer without a ten thousand mile high ice wall to keep them in, and I think it fails at that because it's dynamics are unproven and you make and have made no attempts to prove them.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #130 on: September 19, 2008, 05:36:06 AM »
I didn't say anything about a dark energy field. 
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #131 on: September 19, 2008, 05:57:33 AM »
I didn't say anything about a dark energy field. 

Then talk about accelerated universal expansion, or whatever you want you Tom clone. I was responding to E.Jack originally. As is common here Flat earthers have drastically different views and you chose to hijack my comment and get offended when I differed from your view and stated the view of the person I originally responded to... I would get offended myself, but I've seen you and many like you do the same thing before. I'm going back to my original assertion now.

Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of dark energy is keeping our atmosphere in? Or at least a do a majority of Flat Earthers believe this?

I mean in the sense of a wall, not a driving force or any chicanery. A stationary at the top of the atmosphere wall that don't let the ions out and shit...
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #132 on: September 19, 2008, 06:19:13 AM »
I wasn't offended, I was stating a fact.  Where did the Tom clone comment come from, I don't make shit up.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #133 on: September 19, 2008, 08:46:50 PM »
#1 If the DEF is the force forming a bow shape above the earth, it can't realistically also be the force driving acceleration. You're giving your force unrealistic and almost godlike status.
Imagine DE is a fluid.

#2 You're just one voice, and not many are speaking up for you. FET can survive without DEF dynamics, and will actually do better without them. They're ridiculous really. The only thing DEF dynamics are good at is explaining why the atmosphere has an ionosphere and a lesser charged particle layer without a ten thousand mile high ice wall to keep them in
Not my problem if you can't understand simple physics.

I think it fails at that because it's dynamics are unproven and you make and have made no attempts to prove them.
Just like you RE'ers can't even prove whether or not gravity exists.

Don't worry about it... It's not important.
So your previous statement was a strawman? I thought so.

I've grown used to FET and FE dynamics, but you and "TheEngineer" are just plain nuts... I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...
So, where is the graviton?

Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of dark energy is keeping our atmosphere in? Or at least a do a majority of Flat Earthers believe this?

I mean in the sense of a wall, not a driving force or any chicanery. A stationary at the top of the atmosphere wall that don't let the ions out and shit...
Since the DEF is similar to the shape of a bow shock, it would be more of a dome above the Earth than a "wall".