Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!

• 99 Replies
• 16345 Views

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #60 on: May 20, 2010, 10:14:44 PM »
You do know that forces are invisible right? And I don't know why you're so hell bent against gravity. ever heard of magnetism?
It involves forces at a distance, the inverse square law, subatomic particles, and all the good maths to boot.

A force as the mechanism for gravity was discounted long before gravitons and bendy space were presented as a mechanism. A newtonian force as a mechanism for gravity fails in many areas. Gravity is certainly not a force.

Quote
So is it just a coincidence that his value of G is 1% away from the modern one?

The Cavendish experiment is wildly erratic and unreliable.

In a past thread TheEngineer had this to say about a "Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--

There seems to me, to be some unexplainable things going on in the experiments.  The second video shows a large return of the balance after it contacts the weights.  Just from looking at the video and using an estimate of the angle and time using the stamp on the video, I've made a liberal estimate of the velocity when it makes contact with the weights.  This will result in a certain kinetic energy at the moment of impact.  Assuming a perfectly elastic collision (again, very liberal), the total energy must be conserved, so that the potential energy gained by the masses must equal the kinetic energy.  Using a simple equation, I've found the gravitational attraction of the weights and masses.  Using the kinetic energy as the maximum potential energy and solving for the distance that the mass can travel, I've found the rebound angle to be 0.126 degrees, not the nearly 30 that is shown in the video.  However, there is also a water brake which should damp this small movement, making the video highly suspect.

Now, as I have said, I've made assumptions and simplifications (as it's late, I'm tired and I'm not getting paid for this), and those have been on the larger side of things.

Perhaps I will do an in depth analysis of this if I get bored.

BTW, it is stated on Wiki:

"Bending Spacetime in the Basement (do-it-yourself Cavendish apparatus - appears to be seriously flawed[1])"

Ergo we see that this particular instance of the Cavendish experiment is flawed. Each and every one of us can personally observe in the demonstration videos that gravity does not act in the way predicted by Round Earth Theory.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 10:21:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #61 on: May 20, 2010, 10:16:26 PM »
Quote
I'm sorry but I couldn't see anything pushing the floor up to meet me.  What is it supposed to look like again?

Obviously if it's pushing the floor, it's beneath the floor.

Why don't you have a look?

Quote
Like I said, the force pushing the FE upwards is conveniently unobservable.

Who said that it was a force?

Skeleton

• 956
• Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #62 on: May 20, 2010, 10:50:31 PM »
Quote
I'm sorry but I couldn't see anything pushing the floor up to meet me.  What is it supposed to look like again?

Obviously if it's pushing the floor, it's beneath the floor.

Why don't you have a look?

Quote
Like I said, the force pushing the FE upwards is conveniently unobservable.

Who said that it was a force?

How can something pushing the Earth upwards not be a force?!?
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

Ellipsis

• 467
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #63 on: May 20, 2010, 10:59:45 PM »
Why doesn't UA directly affect me as well as the Earth, making me (relative to it) completely weightless?

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #64 on: May 20, 2010, 11:11:16 PM »
Quote
I'm sorry but I couldn't see anything pushing the floor up to meet me.  What is it supposed to look like again?

Obviously if it's pushing the floor, it's beneath the floor.

Why don't you have a look?

Quote
Like I said, the force pushing the FE upwards is conveniently unobservable.

Who said that it was a force?

How can something pushing the Earth upwards not be a force?!?

Well if you claim it's a force, you'd better damn well have some evidence.

Quote
Why doesn't UA directly affect me as well as the Earth, making me (relative to it) completely weightless?

It's pushing the earth, not you.

?

Ellipsis

• 467
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #65 on: May 20, 2010, 11:13:58 PM »
It's pushing the earth, not you.

Why?  By your very theory, it's pushing up other things that are directly above the Earth.

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #66 on: May 20, 2010, 11:51:37 PM »
It's pushing the earth, not you.

Why?  By your very theory, it's pushing up other things that are directly above the Earth.

I've never said that.

?

Ellipsis

• 467
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #67 on: May 20, 2010, 11:55:12 PM »
So what's keeping up all the other celestial bodies?

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #68 on: May 21, 2010, 12:14:51 AM »
So what's keeping up all the other celestial bodies?

Do a search for "photoelectric suspension".
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:17:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #69 on: May 21, 2010, 03:33:10 AM »
No evidence is required for the existence of gravitons?

Incorrect.

We should just assume that subatomic particles are pulling us towards the earth's surface?

Also incorrect.

The fact that gravity exists is irrefutable. The mechanism is debatable. Please do search for evidence of gravitons. Please don't confuse it with established fact.

markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42747
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #70 on: May 21, 2010, 05:13:26 AM »
Quote
I'm sorry but I couldn't see anything pushing the floor up to meet me.  What is it supposed to look like again?

Obviously if it's pushing the floor, it's beneath the floor.

Why don't you have a look?

I went downstairs and didn't see anything pushing upwards either.

Quote
Like I said, the force pushing the FE upwards is conveniently unobservable.

Who said that it was a force?

If it's not a force pushing the FE upwards, what could it be?  Pixies?
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.

James

• Flat Earther
• The Elder Ones
• 5613
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #71 on: May 21, 2010, 05:41:23 AM »
Why doesn't UA directly affect me as well as the Earth, making me (relative to it) completely weightless?

I never understand why globularists ask why the UA only affects things it is touching. Why would it affect things it wasn't touching?
"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

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #72 on: May 21, 2010, 05:48:12 AM »
Quote
Also incorrect.

The fact that gravity exists is irrefutable. The mechanism is debatable. Please do search for evidence of gravitons. Please don't confuse it with established fact.

"Evidence for Gravitons" turned up zero results, sorry.

Quote
If it's not a force pushing the FE upwards, what could it be?  Pixies?

Not everything is the cause of invisible forces. I don't know why it's your natural intention to jump to the most absurd hypothesis.

Newton's idea of Gravity as a force, for example, was completely absurd. When asked about a mechanism behind this force Newton hadn't a clue. Gravity just was.

Whatever is pushing the earth needn't be a mysterious force. We may be riding on an explosion from the beginning of time. We may be moving through the universe as a function of an exchange in pressure gradients.

There are numerous known possibilities for the action of acceleration. Acceleration is a known concept. Plenty of things can cause acceleration. Things accelerate all the time. In contradiction, "gravitons," "bendy space," and "gravity as a force" requires an entirely new branch of theoretical science to exist.

This is what marks the difference between Round Earth Theory and Flat Earth Theory. On the topic of Gravity the Round Earther will mumble something about invisible hypothetical graviton puller particles too small to see. Meanwhile the Flat Earth's concept of acceleration of the earth is a known physical concept. No new branches of science need to be invented for acceleration to exist.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 06:18:22 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #73 on: May 21, 2010, 06:05:01 AM »
"Evidence for Gravitons" turned up zero results, sorry.

That's a shame. And I'm convinced you looked very hard too.

It still doesn't change the fact of gravity.

I never understand why globularists ask why the UA only affects things it is touching.

Because you've decided to call it a universal accelerator, not an earth accelerator.

By your thinking I have a universal accelerator parked outside my house. It accelerates everything it touches.

James

• Flat Earther
• The Elder Ones
• 5613
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #74 on: May 21, 2010, 06:10:00 AM »
"Evidence for Gravitons" turned up zero results, sorry.

That's a shame. And I'm convinced you looked very hard too.

It still doesn't change the fact of gravity.

I never understand why globularists ask why the UA only affects things it is touching.

Because you've decided to call it a universal accelerator, not an earth accelerator.

By your thinking I have a universal accelerator parked outside my house. It accelerates everything it touches.

Your car is a member of the set "objects", and so is the Universal Accelerator. It is known as the Universal Accelerator because of its infinite two-dimensional extension. In this sense, it accelerates the entire universe, because it either accelerates things which are upon it, or indirectly accelerates things which are in some other manner suspended above the objects which it accelerates.
"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

?

Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #75 on: May 21, 2010, 06:12:57 AM »
Your car is a member of the set "objects", and so is the Universal Accelerator. It is known as the Universal Accelerator because of its infinite two-dimensional extension. In this sense, it accelerates the entire universe, because it either accelerates things which are upon it, or indirectly accelerates things which are in some other manner suspended above the objects which it accelerates.

My car is a universal accelerator because it accelerates everything it is touching.

Just because it only touches the crank shaft does not diminish it's awe inspiring universality.

?

BtheB

• 66
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #76 on: May 21, 2010, 06:13:54 AM »
Quote
If it's not a force pushing the FE upwards, what could it be?  Pixies?

Whatever is pushing the earth needn't be a mysterious force. We may be riding on an explosion from the beginning of time. We may be moving through the universe as a function of an exchange in pressure gradients.

Both of those would be forces.  Anything you could possibly name as the cause of UA would be a force.  Force is the only cause of acceleration.

markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42747
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #77 on: May 21, 2010, 06:16:00 AM »
Quote
Also incorrect.

The fact that gravity exists is irrefutable. The mechanism is debatable. Please do search for evidence of gravitons. Please don't confuse it with established fact.

"Evidence for Gravitons" turned up zero results, sorry.

Really?  Zero results?  Hmmm...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+for+gravitons

That's funny, I got over 58,000 results.
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.

James

• Flat Earther
• The Elder Ones
• 5613
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #78 on: May 21, 2010, 06:24:05 AM »
Your car is a member of the set "objects", and so is the Universal Accelerator. It is known as the Universal Accelerator because of its infinite two-dimensional extension. In this sense, it accelerates the entire universe, because it either accelerates things which are upon it, or indirectly accelerates things which are in some other manner suspended above the objects which it accelerates.

My car is a universal accelerator because it accelerates everything it is touching.

Just because it only touches the crank shaft does not diminish it's awe inspiring universality.

No. Both your car and the Universal Accelerator have a property in common: "only affecting things which touch them". This is a property shared by many objects. When things share one property, but not others, it is not normal practice to claim they are the same thing. Dogs and platypoda both have four limbs. Would I be making an accurate statement if I said my dog was a platypus?
"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

?

Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #79 on: May 21, 2010, 07:26:43 AM »
No. Both your car and the Universal Accelerator have a property in common: "only affecting things which touch them". This is a property shared by many objects. When things share one property, but not others, it is not normal practice to claim they are the same thing. Dogs and platypoda both have four limbs. Would I be making an accurate statement if I said my dog was a platypus?

No. Your definition of a universal accelerator is something that accelerates everything it touches. My car accelerates everything it touches. Therefore it is a universal accelerator.

An animal is four limbed if it has four limbs. Dogs have four limbs. Platypoda have four limbs. Therefore they are both four limbed animals.

The case you're now arguing for is special clause. Please proceed and identify the special case which separates your universal accelerator from mine.

James

• Flat Earther
• The Elder Ones
• 5613
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #80 on: May 21, 2010, 08:53:02 AM »
Don't play the fool with me, Crustinator. "Universal Accelerator" is the proper name of a single object, as I'm sure you are clearly aware already. The reason your car is not the Universal Accelerator is because it there is one Universal Accelerator, and your car occupies a different spatial extension to it.
"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
• The Elder Ones
• 42747
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #81 on: May 21, 2010, 09:12:37 AM »
Quote
If it's not a force pushing the FE upwards, what could it be?  Pixies?

Not everything is the cause of invisible forces. I don't know why it's your natural intention to jump to the most absurd hypothesis.

How many times have you attributed pixies as the source of RE gravity?

Newton's idea of Gravity as a force, for example, was completely absurd. When asked about a mechanism behind this force Newton hadn't a clue. Gravity just was.

Why is it absurd to try to describe the observable effects of an unknown mechanism in terms that people can understand?

*edit*  BTW Tom, how many times did Rowbotham shrug his shoulders and say that certain FE phenomena (such as why the sun has an cyclic increasing-decreasing orbit) were unknowable?

Whatever is pushing the earth needn't be a mysterious force. We may be riding on an explosion from the beginning of time. We may be moving through the universe as a function of an exchange in pressure gradients.

If the whatever is pushing the earth upwards is undetectable because it only exists on the unreachable underside of the FE, then by definition it's a mysterious force since we can never know for sure what it is.

There are numerous known possibilities for the action of acceleration. Acceleration is a known concept. Plenty of things can cause acceleration. Things accelerate all the time. In contradiction, "gravitons," "bendy space," and "gravity as a force" requires an entirely new branch of theoretical science to exist.

That's like saying that polar bears can't exist without zoology.  Gravitons and warped space-time can exist just fine without new branches of physics.  We just need those new branches of physics to describe gravitons and warped space-time.  Big difference.

This is what marks the difference between Round Earth Theory and Flat Earth Theory. On the topic of Gravity the Round Earther will mumble something about invisible hypothetical graviton puller particles too small to see. Meanwhile the Flat Earth's concept of acceleration of the earth is a known physical concept. No new branches of science need to be invented for acceleration to exist.

Except for the FE'ers who don't believe in the UA.  Last time I checked the poll in the believer's forum, more than half of the votes were against Universal Acceleration.  John Davis even uses Gauss's Law of Gravitation (based on Newton's gravity) to describe the effects of gravitation in his non-accelerating model.  If you can't convince the FE believers of the viability of the UA, then how can you expect to convince the skeptics?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 01:22:13 PM by markjo »
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.

?

Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #82 on: May 21, 2010, 10:13:52 AM »
The reason your car is not the Universal Accelerator is because it there is one Universal Accelerator, and your car occupies a different spatial extension to it.

Sorry could you rewrite that so that it makes sense? I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean.

?

Ellipsis

• 467
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #83 on: May 21, 2010, 10:48:30 AM »
Do a search for "photoelectric suspension".

The Earth isn't a giant metal plate.  Even if it were, the celestial bodies (including the sun and moon) would have to continually be putting out more and more light of a very specific wavelength to keep them suspended at the same level above the infinitely accelerating Earth.

EVEN IF they were somehow able to do that, there's the major problem of the Earth growing more positive as the celestial bodies grow more negative over time.  They'd be attracted magnetically like gigantic opposing charges until the sun and moon either crashed into the Earth or got so close that their terrific charge would create the largest lightning ever heard of.

You are wrong.  Noch einmal.

?

Part of the Problem

• 385
• The Liberal
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #84 on: May 21, 2010, 02:57:11 PM »
So what's keeping up all the other celestial bodies?

Do a search for "photoelectric suspension".

Should we expect to see photoelectrons pushing the other celestial bodies up in the same way you expect to see gravitons pulling you to the Earth?

edit - to make it easier for you, I'll make this question multiple choice:

a) yes
b) no
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 07:41:33 AM by Part of the Problem »
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

?

Part of the Problem

• 385
• The Liberal
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2010, 04:47:54 PM »
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

Lorddave

• 18324
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #86 on: May 23, 2010, 05:02:46 PM »
Wow has that thread heated up. (the one in the Believers section)

Seems the camp is split between the reasonable and the crazies.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

Part of the Problem

• 385
• The Liberal
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #87 on: May 24, 2010, 09:02:17 AM »
So what's keeping up all the other celestial bodies?

Do a search for "photoelectric suspension".

Should we expect to see photoelectrons pushing the other celestial bodies up in the same way you expect to see gravitons pulling you to the Earth?

edit - to make it easier for you, I'll make this question multiple choice:

a) yes
b) no

Still waiting, Tom.  I know you've been on since.
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #88 on: May 24, 2010, 09:07:38 AM »
Should we expect to see photoelectrons pushing the other celestial bodies up in the same way you expect to see gravitons pulling you to the Earth?

edit - to make it easier for you, I'll make this question multiple choice:

a) yes
b) no

I've heard of particles which can push.

However, I've never heard of particles which can pull. "Graviton puller particles" seems like a load of fiction to me.

?

Part of the Problem

• 385
• The Liberal
Re: Universal Acceleration - A divided Concept!
« Reply #89 on: May 24, 2010, 10:52:01 AM »
Should we expect to see photoelectrons pushing the other celestial bodies up in the same way you expect to see gravitons pulling you to the Earth?

edit - to make it easier for you, I'll make this question multiple choice:

a) yes
b) no

I've heard of particles which can push.

However, I've never heard of particles which can pull. "Graviton puller particles" seems like a load of fiction to me.

Great.  That wasn't the question.

Should we expect to see photoelectrons pushing the other celestial bodies up in the same way you expect to see gravitons pulling you to the Earth?
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.