« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

"gravity decreasing"

  • 79 Replies
  • 25904 Views
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4308
  • +0/-0
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2009, 02:38:19 PM »
You don't feel acceleration in RET either - you feel the steady rise of air resistance as your velocity increases, but you certainly don't feel like you're accelerating.
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

grifoli

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2009, 02:48:21 PM »
Quote from: Matrix on February 25, 2009, 02:38:19 PM
You don't feel acceleration in RET either - you feel the steady rise of air resistance as your velocity increases, but you certainly don't feel like you're accelerating.

Have you never swung outside in a park, than "throwing" yourself in the void? You certainly feel a strange sensation! Like in a rollercoaster.
Logged
Quote from: Neil Armstrong
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2009, 02:51:00 PM »
Logged
?

avsfan987

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2009, 02:51:52 PM »
Quote from: Matrix on February 25, 2009, 02:38:19 PM
You don't feel acceleration in RET either - you feel the steady rise of air resistance as your velocity increases, but you certainly don't feel like you're accelerating.

What? I thought that we had no velocity according to FE. We are just sort of floating in the air until the earth catches up to us.

Also, I do feel acceleration when I fall, I'm not sure what you think you're experiencing.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2009, 07:17:44 PM »
Quote from: Cockmongler1337 on February 25, 2009, 01:37:40 PM
Quote
I don't know, probably around 99.999999999999% or so.
Why would you assume that?

'Cause I can do math.
Logged


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

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2009, 07:22:16 PM »
Logged


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

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2009, 07:24:13 PM »
Quote from: avsfan987 on February 25, 2009, 02:51:52 PM
What? I thought that we had no velocity according to FE. We are just sort of floating in the air until the earth catches up to us.
You have no acceleration, you still have velocity.

Quote
Also, I do feel acceleration when I fall
I'm pretty sure you don't. 
Logged


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

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2009, 07:41:54 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 12:42:23 PM
Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 12:28:57 PM
How close is our current speed to that of the speed of light? Is it 40% of the speed of light? 10%? 86%?
I don't know, probably around 99.999999999999% or so.

Or 0%.  It seems kind of relative to me.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2009, 07:42:47 PM »
Quite right.
Logged


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

grifoli

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2009, 08:09:00 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 07:24:13 PM
Quote from: avsfan987 on February 25, 2009, 02:51:52 PM
What? I thought that we had no velocity according to FE. We are just sort of floating in the air until the earth catches up to us.
You have no acceleration, you still have velocity.

Quote
Also, I do feel acceleration when I fall
I'm pretty sure you don't. 

So I guess you feel absolutely nothing when you are in a rollercoaster except a little breeze in your hair?
Logged
Quote from: Neil Armstrong
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
?

hi

  • 302
  • +0/-0
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2009, 08:32:44 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 12:42:23 PM
Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 12:28:57 PM
How close is our current speed to that of the speed of light? Is it 40% of the speed of light? 10%? 86%?
I don't know, probably around 99.999999999999% or so.
Wasn't it mentioned somewhere else on this forum that it's impossible to have matter as we know it reach the speed of light. And that we can accelerate as fast as we want and never reach the speed of light?
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2009, 12:54:34 AM »
Quote from: grifoli on February 25, 2009, 08:09:00 PM
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 07:24:13 PM
Quote from: avsfan987 on February 25, 2009, 02:51:52 PM
What? I thought that we had no velocity according to FE. We are just sort of floating in the air until the earth catches up to us.
You have no acceleration, you still have velocity.

Quote
Also, I do feel acceleration when I fall
I'm pretty sure you don't. 

So I guess you feel absolutely nothing when you are in a rollercoaster except a little breeze in your hair?

Ok, has it occured to you that you are arguing that Einstein was wrong? I know this is a tired line, but it's still achingly relevant. According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable locally. You can look that up, and I would advise you to.

So unless you have a new mathematical theory that overthrows GR, then I suggest you drop the point and do a bit of reading on the subject.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2009, 04:33:59 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 07:22:16 PM
Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 02:51:00 PM
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 11:22:50 AM
What?  Bouyancy is not dependent on 'gravity'.

Oh FFS.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=29812
I would love for you to show me that I am wrong.

Is it because you can't read, or because you can't search? You want me to read it aloud is that it?

F = mg - pVg.

Put your chest away bantam cock.
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2009, 07:02:24 AM »
Now replace g with a and read it aloud again.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2009, 07:46:54 AM »
Quote from: Robbyj on February 26, 2009, 07:02:24 AM
Now replace g with a and read it aloud again.

Gravity and acceleration are equivelent... so replacing g with a achieves nothing...

I gssume you hgve g point?
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2009, 07:50:03 AM »
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:46:54 AM
Gravity and acceleration are equivelent... so replacing g with a changes nothing...

Fixed.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2009, 07:51:28 AM »
Quote from: Robbyj on February 26, 2009, 07:50:03 AM
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:46:54 AM
Gravity and acceleration are equivelent... so replacing g with a changes nothing...

Fixed.

We're arguing over semantics now? You're really fishing for that win aren't you?
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2009, 07:54:37 AM »
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:51:28 AM
Quote from: Robbyj on February 26, 2009, 07:50:03 AM
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:46:54 AM
Gravity and acceleration are equivelent... so replacing g with a changes nothing...

Fixed.

We're arguing over semantics now? You're really fishing for that win aren't you?

In GR, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. Agreed?


That means the little sum you're flaunting works whether you use gravitation or acceleration where 'g' was in your original post. Catching on?
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2009, 07:55:10 AM »
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:51:28 AM
We're arguing over semantics now? You're really fishing for that win aren't you?

Not really.  You proved the point yourself, though it seems kind of on accident.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2009, 08:23:29 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:54:37 AM
That means the little sum you're flaunting works whether you use gravitation or acceleration where 'g' was in your original post. Catching on?

I am but you're not.

I called Engy out. He flapped his arms. I showed him his ass. A few people ran in and flapped their arms.

Quote from: Robbyj on February 26, 2009, 07:55:10 AM
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:51:28 AM
We're arguing over semantics now? You're really fishing for that win aren't you?

Not really.  You proved the point yourself, though it seems kind of on accident.

That's right. If you are going to eek any kind of win from this, let it be that somehow I proved my point "accidentally". You know I just press my face against the keyboard and by good fortune these words appear on screen.
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #50 on: February 26, 2009, 08:32:56 AM »
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 08:23:29 AM
That's right. If you are going to eek any kind of win from this, let it be that somehow I proved my point "accidentally".

No, you proved our point accidentally.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2009, 09:07:24 AM »
Quote from: Robbyj on February 26, 2009, 08:32:56 AM
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 08:23:29 AM
That's right. If you are going to eek any kind of win from this, let it be that somehow I proved my point "accidentally".

No, you proved our point accidentally.

Sorry, I did ask you what your point was, but you didn't reply.
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #52 on: February 26, 2009, 09:11:21 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 11:22:50 AM
What?  Bouyancy is not dependent on 'gravity'.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45161
  • +98/-138
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #53 on: February 26, 2009, 10:04:18 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:54:37 AM
In GR, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. Agreed?

Only under certain conditions.
Logged
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.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #54 on: February 26, 2009, 10:25:57 AM »
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:46:54 AM
Gravity and acceleration are equivelent... so replacing g with a achieves nothing...
You RE'ers, always eager to shoot yourself in the foot.  That is why you noobs never grow old.
Logged


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

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2009, 03:38:17 PM »
Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2009, 10:04:18 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:54:37 AM
In GR, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. Agreed?

Only under certain conditions.

Such as the conditions we are discussing. Anyway, hilarious thread. Another victory for FE!
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2009, 08:16:39 PM »
Huzzah!
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

hi

  • 302
  • +0/-0
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2009, 08:18:45 PM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 03:38:17 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2009, 10:04:18 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:54:37 AM
In GR, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. Agreed?

Only under certain conditions.

Such as the conditions we are discussing. Anyway, hilarious thread. Another victory for FE!
"And we would of gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids and your stupid dog!"
Logged
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2009, 08:41:32 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on February 26, 2009, 10:25:57 AM
Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 07:46:54 AM
Gravity and acceleration are equivelent... so replacing g with a achieves nothing...
You RE'ers, always eager to shoot yourself in the foot.  That is why you noobs never grow old.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 12:46:14 AM
Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.  That's what allows us to have the earth accelerating.

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 06, 2007, 12:09:46 PM
Gravity does not exist.  Gravitation does.

So by your definitions gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Whatever this "thing" is (lets call it gravitation shall we?) buoyancy needs it.

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 25, 2009, 11:22:50 AM
What?  Bouyancy is not dependent on 'gravity'.

Wrong. According to yourself.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: "gravity decreasing"
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2009, 11:22:51 AM »
Ok, let me break it down for you in really simple langauge:

Gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable.

Thus, for buoyancy to work, we need either gravitation or acceleration.

In RET, we have gravitation.

In FET, we have acceleration.



So it works in either theory. Capiche?
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »