UA and Space Travel

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth. What makes a "celestial body" different from a spaceship?

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 01:38:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

So the UA acts on very specific materials? What materials? Is it possible to make a spacecraft out of those materials?

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 01:38:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

So the UA acts on very specific materials? What materials? Is it possible to make a spacecraft out of those materials?

I believe so, yes. I do not know what these materials are. And yes, in theory it is possible.
This is all just a theory, most likely one not shared by all FE'ers.

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 02:04:27 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 01:38:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

So the UA acts on very specific materials? What materials? Is it possible to make a spacecraft out of those materials?

I believe so, yes. I do not know what these materials are. And yes, in theory it is possible.
This is all just a theory, most likely one not shared by all FE'ers.

Not all FE'ers share the theory that the UA even exists.

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 02:04:27 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 01:38:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

So the UA acts on very specific materials? What materials? Is it possible to make a spacecraft out of those materials?

I believe so, yes. I do not know what these materials are. And yes, in theory it is possible.
This is all just a theory, most likely one not shared by all FE'ers.

So you don't know what materials the UA acts on, but you know metal isn't one of them? How do you know this?

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 02:04:27 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 01:38:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

So the UA acts on very specific materials? What materials? Is it possible to make a spacecraft out of those materials?

I believe so, yes. I do not know what these materials are. And yes, in theory it is possible.
This is all just a theory, most likely one not shared by all FE'ers.

So you don't know what materials the UA acts on, but you know metal isn't one of them? How do you know this?

I never said it doesn't act on metals.

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 04:00:47 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 02:04:27 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 01:38:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

So the UA acts on very specific materials? What materials? Is it possible to make a spacecraft out of those materials?

I believe so, yes. I do not know what these materials are. And yes, in theory it is possible.
This is all just a theory, most likely one not shared by all FE'ers.

So you don't know what materials the UA acts on, but you know metal isn't one of them? How do you know this?

I never said it doesn't act on metals.

You said it would not affect space ships, which are made of metal.

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 04:02:00 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 04:00:47 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 02:04:27 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 06, 2009, 01:38:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

How does that work? Spaceships are made out of earth.

They are made out of metals from the earth, but the earth is made up of more than just those certain metals.

So the UA acts on very specific materials? What materials? Is it possible to make a spacecraft out of those materials?

I believe so, yes. I do not know what these materials are. And yes, in theory it is possible.
This is all just a theory, most likely one not shared by all FE'ers.

So you don't know what materials the UA acts on, but you know metal isn't one of them? How do you know this?

I never said it doesn't act on metals.

You said it would not affect space ships, which are made of metal.

Quote

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

There is more than one kind of metal.

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

You're wrong, primarily because the UA isn't some sort of magic distance force which can pick and choose which objects it affects. It only "affects" objects which it is in physical contact with, in almost exactly the same way as my desk affects the objects which are on it.

I think he's referring to the Dark Energy model.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 06, 2009, 01:31:00 PM

I personally believe that UA only affects celestial bodies, so would not affect spaceships.

You're wrong, primarily because the UA isn't some sort of magic distance force which can pick and choose which objects it affects. It only "affects" objects which it is in physical contact with, in almost exactly the same way as my desk affects the objects which are on it.

What if objects had to possess something like electrical charge to be affected by the UA?  What if only the celestial bodies and the underside of the Earth had this "charge".  I think it is unwise to make any definitive statements about the UA beyond what is directly observable.

What if objects had to possess something like electrical charge to be affected by the UA?  What if only the celestial bodies and the underside of the Earth had this "charge".  I think it is unwise to make any definitive statements about the UA beyond what is directly observable.

But you just made that up. "What if" isn't how science ought to proceed.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 02:29:48 AM

What if objects had to possess something like electrical charge to be affected by the UA?  What if only the celestial bodies and the underside of the Earth had this "charge".  I think it is unwise to make any definitive statements about the UA beyond what is directly observable.

But you just made that up. "What if" isn't how science ought to proceed.

My speculation has just enough merit as yours.  The only logical position to hold is to make no conclusion when there is no evidence in either direction.

Photoelectric Suspension Theory is attested by a number of empirical facts from a range of different disciplines. You literally just made up your claim out of thin air, as far as I know (do correct me if I'm wrong). I appreciate your contributions to the FE scientific discourse, but I think that pursuing the notion that the UA is a magic distance force is silly. Part of the beauty of the FE model is that it reduces the reliance on magic forces for explanation of phenomena as compared to globular theory. Please don't try and remove that advantage with wild speculations about mystery forces!

Photoelectric Suspension Theory is attested by a number of empirical facts from a range of different disciplines. You literally just made up your claim out of thin air, as far as I know (do correct me if I'm wrong). I appreciate your contributions to the FE scientific discourse, but I think that pursuing the notion that the UA is a magic distance force is silly. Part of the beauty of the FE model is that it reduces the reliance on magic forces for explanation of phenomena as compared to globular theory. Please don't try and remove that advantage with wild speculations about mystery forces!

The UA is a magic force.  There is no way around it.  We have no idea how it works.  It likely involves undiscovered new physics.  And no I didn't just make that up.  I have several conceptions on how the UA might work.

The UA is a magic force.  There is no way around it.  We have no idea how it works.  It likely involves undiscovered new physics.

No, no it isn't. If you think it is, you're on as shaky ground as a globularist. If you think the UA is a magic force, you might as well just believe in gravity, because there is the same level of explanation and understanding for both.

Or, like me and other theorists, you can take the position that is explicable only by appeal to observable laws of the universe. You don't need to invent a magic force to explain something which acts like other objects which we can observe. It's theorism at its worst, anathema to the zetetic principle, and sharing all the weaknesses of globularism.

  And no I didn't just make that up.  I have several conceptions on how the UA might work.

So you made up several different fantasies about magic forces? Sounds like you could have a serious future in the existing scientific elite, who do exactly that.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 03:06:59 AM

The UA is a magic force.  There is no way around it.  We have no idea how it works.  It likely involves undiscovered new physics.

No, no it isn't. If you think it is, you're on as shaky ground as a globularist. If you think the UA is a magic force, you might as well just believe in gravity, because there is the same level of explanation and understanding for both.

Or, like me and other theorists, you can take the position that is explicable only by appeal to observable laws of the universe. You don't need to invent a magic force to explain something which acts like other objects which we can observe. It's theorism at its worst, anathema to the zetetic principle, and sharing all the weaknesses of globularism.

I have considered the known, observed laws of the universe.  I know the observed forces of nature, I cannot think of any that would satisfactorily explain the acceleration of the Earth without plenty of speculation and unknowns.  Hence, for all purposes the UA is magic.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 03:06:59 AM

  And no I didn't just make that up.  I have several conceptions on how the UA might work.

So you made up several different fantasies about magic forces? Sounds like you could have a serious future in the existing scientific elite, who do exactly that.

[/quote]

I make conjectures because one of them might turn out to be true.  I assign no truth value to them until they are backed by evidence, unlike many globularists.

I have considered the known, observed laws of the universe.  I know the observed forces of nature, I cannot think of any that would satisfactorily explain the acceleration of the Earth without plenty of speculation and unknowns.  Hence, for all purposes the UA is magic.

Well, I can think of one, which doesn't require the invention of a mystical magic force. I adhere to it and believe it to be true.

I make conjectures because one of them might turn out to be true.

I quoted this to you in another thread, but I think it is completely pertinent to this statement.

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena.

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 03:35:55 AM

I have considered the known, observed laws of the universe.  I know the observed forces of nature, I cannot think of any that would satisfactorily explain the acceleration of the Earth without plenty of speculation and unknowns.  Hence, for all purposes the UA is magic.

Well, I can think of one, which doesn't require the invention of a mystical magic force. I adhere to it and believe it to be true.

Please do explain.

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

Very well said, NEEMAN.

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

But here, Michael, conjecture IS being used as a basis for belief. This is what I am taking issue with. The entire notion that the UA is a mysterious gravity-analog (i.e. a force which works by magic) is a belief, which is founded on conjecture.

There is more than one kind of metal.

And you assumed that any metal or other materials contained in spacecraft are not acted on by the UA why?

No, no it isn't. If you think it is, you're on as shaky ground as a globularist. If you think the UA is a magic force, you might as well just believe in gravity, because there is the same level of explanation and understanding for both.

Or, like me and other theorists, you can take the position that is explicable only by appeal to observable laws of the universe. You don't need to invent a magic force to explain something which acts like other objects which we can observe. It's theorism at its worst, anathema to the zetetic principle, and sharing all the weaknesses of globularism.

The UA isn't a magical force? How does it work, then? The only explanations I have heard is "dark energy" or "dark matter", simply some force that accelerates objects for some reason, and continues to follow the objects it accelerates to keep accelerating it. How gravitation works (warping of spacetime) can't be proven, but I have yet to hear how the UA works except that it accelerates objects. What makes UA less magical than gravitation?

The UA isn't a magical force? How does it work, then? The only explanations I have heard is "dark energy" or "dark matter", simply some force that accelerates objects for some reason, and continues to follow the objects it accelerates to keep accelerating it. How gravitation works (warping of spacetime) can't be proven, but I have yet to hear how the UA works except that it accelerates objects. What makes UA less magical than gravitation?

The UA is an object. If it was a force, it wouldn't have the epithet "Accelerator" which suggests "a thing which accelerates". As far as I am concerned, the very notion that the UA is a force has apparently been smuggled into the current discourse by clumsy devil's advocates who have simply not properly comprehended what is being proposed.

Explaining why the Earth moves upwards at the same accelerating rate as the UA scarcely requires more explanation than why my keyboard doesn't fall through my desk. The Earth is resting on the UA, and the UA is accelerating upwards. It's really very simple, explicable by observable scientific laws, and makes no appeal to magic forces. That is what makes it less magical than gravitation.

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 06:39:02 AM

The UA isn't a magical force? How does it work, then? The only explanations I have heard is "dark energy" or "dark matter", simply some force that accelerates objects for some reason, and continues to follow the objects it accelerates to keep accelerating it. How gravitation works (warping of spacetime) can't be proven, but I have yet to hear how the UA works except that it accelerates objects. What makes UA less magical than gravitation?

The UA is an object. If it was a force, it wouldn't have the epithet "Accelerator" which suggests "a thing which accelerates". As far as I am concerned, the very notion that the UA is a force has apparently been smuggled into the current discourse by clumsy devil's advocates who have simply not properly comprehended what is being proposed.

Explaining why the Earth moves upwards at the same accelerating rate as the UA scarcely requires more explanation than why my keyboard doesn't fall through my desk. The Earth is resting on the UA, and the UA is accelerating upwards. It's really very simple, explicable by observable scientific laws, and makes no appeal to magic forces. That is what makes it less magical than gravitation.

So what can you tell me about this magical object? How does it constantly accelerate?

I bet he could tell you as much about that as you could tell him exactly how mass bends spacetime causing the effect we call gravitation.

I bet he could tell you as much about that as you could tell him exactly how mass bends spacetime causing the effect we call gravitation.

Except he is claiming that the UA is more plausible than mass warping spacetime. I admit that neither the cause for mass warping spacetime nor the cause for the UA to accelerate can be proven. However, the effect of gravitation has been proven, but the UA is pure conjecture. He claims the UA doesn't require magic, but its infinite energy required to constantly accelerate the earth, sun, moon, etc. would be magic, since there is no scientific explanation for it.