Gravity

  • 32 Replies
  • 2156 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39310
Re: Gravity
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2010, 10:06:49 AM »
Inverse square is not "inverse exponential".

Nothing gets past you. You are a winner!

So an inverse square is not an exponent?  ???
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.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Gravity
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2010, 10:31:05 AM »
I got the circle from our conversation a year ago, when you paralleled the earths curvature with that of light.

Light bending in a circle on a flat Earth would not produce the same results as light moving in a straight line on a round Earth, for the simple reason that straight light doesn't loop back around on itself.

after lrning2 Multivarcalc and AP physics, I added in the mathematicals behind the circle.

Congratulations, Newton would be proud.

the circular path of light would account for all of the data that the RE'ers presented, as it would make the ships sink in the fashion described. this also accounts for why you cannot see china from america, no matter how high you get.

It would also completely fail to account for the fact that if you look straight ahead, you see a horizon and not the back of your head.

if light moved in a quadratic, then the earth would appear to be a quadratic hill from the eye of an observer.

I doubt this is the case, although I have not actually done the analysis so I cannot comment conclusively.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2010, 10:34:05 AM »
I still want to know how Earth + all the other celestial bodies where formed.

The RE'ers have a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation, but you FE'ers can't even briefly explain anything to me.

Trolling makes me angry.