Light bends up, right?

Lets say a speed of .000001 m/s (exceedingly high as the atom will cease to exist at far lower accelerations). http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/wonderquest/photonmass.htm says that photon is 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron. This seems like acceleration would do nothing, but, the EAT accelerates photons A LOT (enough that even going at lightspeed for a distance of 10-100 km, it has a supposedly significant speed

I stopped reading here. The photons don't speed up.

Has velocity in that direction? Why don't you stop arguing semantics? When light bends, it has speed in the direction it is going. That doesn't mean it goes over C.


Try to find a problem with my values. I was very conservative for the atomic stability one.

Has anyone ever disproven Newton's first law?  Do you have a reason to doubt the veracity of Newton's first law?

Irrelevant.

When you can prove you're not a talking sphincter, let me know and I'll prove Newton's first law to you. Until then, I don't converse with talking sphincters.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Lets say a speed of .000001 m/s (exceedingly high as the atom will cease to exist at far lower accelerations).

You have just compared a speed to an acceleration. It is quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The earth has been around for 4 billion years. Combine that with my very very very high estimate of atom instability, and the extreme accelerations of light particles that the EAT must generate, and the atom cannot exist.

Photons do not represent a stable part of the atom. I fail to see why accelerating photons would cause an atom to become unstable.

Quote from: markjo on March 12, 2010, 11:27:42 AM

Has anyone ever disproven Newton's first law?  Do you have a reason to doubt the veracity of Newton's first law?

Irrelevant.

Then you admit that no one has disproven Newton's first law and you have no reason to doubt its veracity.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Then you admit that no one has disproven Newton's first law and you have no reason to doubt its veracity.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Where have I claimed otherwise?

Quote from: brathearon on March 12, 2010, 09:59:41 AM

Its been proven to a point where it is accepted as much as most things we deem "real".  Which i realize does not COMPLETELY proove it, as nothing can be.  It would be like saying that i put books in a box, do i know that the books dont disappear while they are inside and reappear when i open it again?  how do i know that someone doesnt secretly take them, and put them back before i open it again every time?  How do i know that something im looking at is really there?  There are circumstances that can make things that i know and see as real, to be actually false, but it is rare/unlikely that it is.

Im not completely saying that newton's law cant be false, im saying its unlikely that it is, especially for macroscopic objects.

Then you agree that any conclusion which relies on it is based on the assumption that it is true.

you realize, that that means that everything that you say, everything that exists (including this discussion about assumptions) are ALL assumptions.

Except, this is not how people define things in this day and age.  Things with an incredibly high amount of certainty are taken to be true.

you realize, that that means that everything that you say, everything that exists (including this discussion about assumptions) are ALL assumptions.

Yes.

Quote from: brathearon on March 12, 2010, 09:28:35 PM

you realize, that that means that everything that you say, everything that exists (including this discussion about assumptions) are ALL assumptions.

Yes.

You might quite possible be either the dumbest peson ever, or the biggest troll.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 12, 2010, 12:47:51 PM

When you can prove you're not a talking sphincter, let me know and I'll prove Newton's first law to you. Until then, I don't converse with talking sphincters.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Merely a statement of personal policy. Are you suggesting that calling you a talking sphincter is in some way an insult? I simply believe that is what you are until you can prove otherwise.

Quote from: markjo on March 12, 2010, 07:16:46 PM

Then you admit that no one has disproven Newton's first law and you have no reason to doubt its veracity.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Where have I claimed otherwise?

Then why are you pretending that it matters?  Any yes, you can prove Newton's first law via his second law:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sjblatt/science/physics/proofnewtonsfirst.html

Then why are you pretending that it matters?

Thermal Detonator claimed that gravity could be observed without reference to an assumption. I was pointing out the fallacy of this statement.

Any yes, you can prove Newton's first law via his second law:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sjblatt/science/physics/proofnewtonsfirst.html

The second law is a generalisation of the first law; if you assume the first law, you assume that some subset of all systems conformant to the second law are valid.

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2010, 10:39:33 AM

Then why are you pretending that it matters?

Thermal Detonator claimed that gravity could be observed without reference to an assumption. I was pointing out the fallacy of this statement.

You always have to start out with some sort of assumption, even it that assumption is that you are awake and experiencing things as they really are.

You always have to start out with some sort of assumption, even it that assumption is that you are awake and experiencing things as they really are.

Correct.

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2010, 11:23:10 AM

You always have to start out with some sort of assumption, even it that assumption is that you are awake and experiencing things as they really are.

Correct.

I see Captain Circular Logic is back lol.

Parsifal, I was talking about electrons. Since the EAT works electromagnetically, it should affect all particles. It would slowly but surely accelerate electrons, protons, etc. enough that the atom would destabilize. The earth has been around 4 billion years. That is a lot of time for atoms to destabilize. Yet they haven't.

Parsifal, I was talking about electrons. Since the EAT works electromagnetically, it should affect all particles. It would slowly but surely accelerate electrons, protons, etc. enough that the atom would destabilize. The earth has been around 4 billion years. That is a lot of time for atoms to destabilize. Yet they haven't.

First of all, the mechanism behind EA is unknown. It is called "Electromagnetic Acceleration" because it affects electromagnetic radiation. Moreover, even if it did accelerate electrons, there's no reason why that would destabilise atoms if the acceleration is constant.

You still haven't clarified your comparison of speed with acceleration, so I have no idea what you were trying to say there.

why even need a source for the earth accelerating upward if newton's first law may not be valid?

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2010, 11:23:10 AM

You always have to start out with some sort of assumption, even it that assumption is that you are awake and experiencing things as they really are.

Correct.

Ah.  Now I see my mistake.  I assumed that you had a point.  Carry on.

why even need a source for the earth accelerating upward if newton's first law may not be valid?

Because Newton's first law of motion is generally accepted to be valid, and we have no reason to believe that it is not.

Quote from: brathearon on March 14, 2010, 08:09:44 AM

why even need a source for the earth accelerating upward if newton's first law may not be valid?

Because Newton's first law of motion is generally accepted to be valid, and we have no reason to believe that it is not.

except, if you do believe its valid, then how does anyone explain the apparent gravitational behavior of everything in space?  Especially when so many of the materials there can also be found on earth?

except, if you do believe its valid, then how does anyone explain the apparent gravitational behavior of everything in space?

Gravitation.

Especially when so many of the materials there can also be found on earth?

How do you know what materials are found in space? Have you been there?

Quote from: brathearon on March 15, 2010, 03:10:18 AM

except, if you do believe its valid, then how does anyone explain the apparent gravitational behavior of everything in space?

Gravitation.

Quote from: brathearon on March 15, 2010, 03:10:18 AM

Especially when so many of the materials there can also be found on earth?

How do you know what materials are found in space? Have you been there?

Ever hear of spectroscopy?

Ever hear of spectroscopy?

Yes, I have. Why?

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 15, 2010, 07:58:09 AM

Ever hear of spectroscopy?

Yes, I have. Why?

Becuase you seem to fail at comprehending it.

Becuase you seem to fail at comprehending it.

Not at all. In fact, the principle, if not the practice, is extremely straightforward.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 15, 2010, 01:37:20 PM

Becuase you seem to fail at comprehending it.

Not at all. In fact, the principle, if not the practice, is extremely straightforward.

there is that, and the meteors and such that fall.

there is that, and the meteors and such that fall.

There's no evidence to suggest that the meteorites we find on the ground come from space.

There's no evidence to suggest that the meteorites we find on the ground come from space.

There's no evidence to suggest the meteorites we find on the ground don't come from space.

Suck on that.

There's no evidence to suggest the meteorites we find on the ground don't come from space.

I don't disagree. However, that does not support the argument being made by brathearon.

Quote from: brathearon on March 16, 2010, 11:52:18 AM

there is that, and the meteors and such that fall.

There's no evidence to suggest that the meteorites we find on the ground come from space.

even so, we can observe the spectral lines from space to tell what they are made of.  And it just so happens that their densities match up with the materials they are made of  (that is, you dont see any ridiculous values like metal being the density of air at ice temperatures).  And it also just so happens that the sun's fusion reactions also match with the RE values of gravity and quantum tunneling.  Also, the speeds and sizes of the sun and planets also conveniently match up with the RE forms of gravity.  That is, if i "assume" the earth has gravity, use that value for G, and apply it to the entire solar system, it all works out within my error. 

you probably cant see ALL of the planets, but the ones you can see match.