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

About space travel.

  • 48 Replies
  • 14057 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2009, 11:36:59 PM »
Quote from: Squat on July 07, 2009, 11:32:33 PM
As the effect is the same as gravity then, why should UA be more believable?

Because acceleration is a known physical process. Plenty of things are known to accelerate and plenty of things are known to cause acceleration.

There is nothing "known" about sub-atomic gravitons telling mass which direction to move.
Logged
?

Squat

Re: About space travel.
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2009, 11:42:01 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 11:36:59 PM
Quote from: Squat on July 07, 2009, 11:32:33 PM
As the effect is the same as gravity then, why should UA be more believable?

Because acceleration is a known physical process. Plenty of things are known to accelerate and plenty of things are known to cause acceleration.

There is nothing "known" about sub-atomic gravitons telling mass which direction to move.


Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2009, 11:55:08 PM »
Quote from: Squat on July 07, 2009, 11:42:01 PM
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".

Whatever the mechanism is, it can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.

"Gravitons" and "bending space" need entirely new branches of science to exist.
Logged
?

Squat

Re: About space travel.
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2009, 12:01:23 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 11:55:08 PM
Quote from: Squat on July 07, 2009, 11:42:01 PM
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".

Whatever the mechanism is, it can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.

"Gravitons" and "bending space" need entirely new branches of science to exist.

Why would the existing branches of science be inadequate?  They seem to have done OK so far and quite a bit better than zetetic science has done.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2009, 12:07:09 AM »
Quote
Why would the existing branches of science be inadequate?  They seem to have done OK so far and quite a bit better than zetetic science has done.

They haven't done "OK". In order for a phenomenon to be valid there must be empirical evidence for that phenomenon. A pile of hypotheticals does not make a theory. It make a hypothesis. Gravity is a hypothesis. There is nothing what-so-ever which demonstrates the existence of Graviton particles, bending space, or anything like that. Gravity cannot tell us how galaxies stay together, nor can it predict the next lunar eclipse (it's predicted by cycles).

In the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

See this quote from softpedia.com:

    "According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

No one knows the first thing about Gravity. No one knows how it works, nor can anyone use the equations to predict anything. It's pseudoscience.
Logged
?

Squat

Re: About space travel.
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2009, 12:14:05 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2009, 12:07:09 AM
Quote
Why would the existing branches of science be inadequate?  They seem to have done OK so far and quite a bit better than zetetic science has done.

Zetetic scientists haven't done "OK". In order for a phenomenon to be valid there must be empirical evidence for that phenomenon. A pile of hypotheticals does not make a theory. It make a hypothesis. UA is a hypothesis. There is nothing what-so-ever which demonstrates the existence of UA. UA cannot tell us how galaxies stay together, nor can it predict the next lunar eclipse (it's predicted by cycles).

It's pseudoscience.

Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2009, 05:45:27 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 11:55:08 PM
Quote from: Squat on July 07, 2009, 11:42:01 PM
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".
Whatever the mechanism is, it can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.

"Gravitons" and "bending space" need entirely new branches of science to exist.
You have yet to cite a known physical process which can accelerate the earth.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45126
  • +90/-134
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2009, 06:33:53 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2009, 12:07:09 AM
No one knows the first thing about Gravity. No one knows how it works, nor can anyone use the equations to predict anything. It's pseudoscience.

I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.
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.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2009, 01:27:19 AM »
Quote from: markjo on July 08, 2009, 06:33:53 AM
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.

Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45126
  • +90/-134
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2009, 06:15:03 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2009, 01:27:19 AM
Quote from: markjo on July 08, 2009, 06:33:53 AM
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.

Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?

The paths of artillery rounds, bombs and stunt people as they fly through the air.  Oh, and Einstein used his equations of gravity to predict the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun.
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.
?

Squat

Re: About space travel.
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2009, 06:22:52 AM »
Quote from: markjo on July 09, 2009, 06:15:03 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2009, 01:27:19 AM
Quote from: markjo on July 08, 2009, 06:33:53 AM
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.

Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?

The paths of artillery rounds, bombs and stunt people as they fly through the air.  Oh, and Einstein used his equations of gravity to predict the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun.

It's called ballistics. An artillery round or a bullet has a trajectory.  Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory to improve knowledge through understanding Tom. 
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2009, 09:49:29 PM »
Yes, so how do ballistics prove the existence of gravity?
Logged
?

Squat

Re: About space travel.
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2009, 10:27:46 PM »
The same way they prove UA.

The observable earth is flat - that's where UA operates. The whole world is a sphere and that's where gravity is working.

It's really quite simple.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2009, 10:28:53 PM »
So ballistics doesn't prove gravity then? I was just told that it does.
Logged
?

Squat

Re: About space travel.
« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2009, 10:46:41 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2009, 10:28:53 PM
So ballistics doesn't prove gravity then? I was just told that it does.

No you weren't.

The word prove was not used. The word predict was used; they do not mean the same thing.

I can predict that you will write the phrases "Read Earth Not a Globe by Stanley Birley Rowbotham" and "Read the literature in my signature link" in the next two days. It doesn't prove that you will.

Below, I've quoted the posts for you to save you the effort of looking back through the thread.


Quote from: markjo on July 08, 2009, 06:33:53 AM

I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.

Quote from: markjo on July 09, 2009, 06:15:03 AM

Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?

The paths of artillery rounds, bombs and stunt people as they fly through the air.  Oh, and Einstein used his equations of gravity to predict the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun.
[/quote]

Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2009, 10:49:58 PM »
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?
Logged
?

Squat

Re: About space travel.
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2009, 10:59:58 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2009, 10:49:58 PM
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?

ITYWF that the assertion was that the predictions for gravity will help artillerymen predict the fall of their rounds.

However, with the amount of times that so called 'Friendly Fire' incidents occur and the fact that the British Army's Royal Artillery are called 'Drop shorts' I sometimes think that all artillerymen must be FE'ers. 
Logged
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2009, 04:07:07 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2009, 10:49:58 PM
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?

Well I suppose what they were probably getting at was that the theory of gravity predicts that they will come back down out of the sky. So does the theory of Universal Acceleration, though.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45126
  • +90/-134
Re: About space travel.
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2009, 06:27:19 AM »
Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 10, 2009, 04:07:07 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2009, 10:49:58 PM
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?

Well I suppose what they were probably getting at was that the theory of gravity predicts that they will come back down out of the sky. So does the theory of Universal Acceleration, though.

I never said that UA couldn't make the same predictions.  Tom's assertion was that the theory of gravity couldn't be used to predict anything.  I simply disagreed with that assertion.  Now Tom is trying to save face by deliberately twisting the meaning our responses (as usual).
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.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »