Stepping of chair experiment?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 04:10:59 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 14, 2010, 10:14:48 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 09:22:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2010, 04:23:37 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 01:16:06 PM

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

To be fair, Tom never claimed that he was measuring or calculating the 9.8m/s² value when he steps off the chair.  He was only demonstrating his assertion that the earth accelerates up to meet the observer.

So is it apart  of the conspiracy that the maths behind g line up with the purported mass/size of the earth?

Gravity doesn't not affect FE. Only UA. The "maths" behind the theory of gravity are irrelevant.

Not really. The math behind gravity predicts things that UA doesn't.
UA is a derp theory. In that it says derp, the earth is moving up at g.
gravity on the other hand predicts the orbit of the moon, Earth, Coriolis effect, gravitational time dilation, black holes, planetary movement, asteroids, commits, meteors just to name a few

It also fails to predict a number of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

That doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make the much less likely, unexplainable, unsupported and unproven "UA" correct.

It also fails to predict a number of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Cool. Are they things that stepping off a chair can predict?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 16, 2010, 04:42:56 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 04:10:59 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 14, 2010, 10:14:48 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 09:22:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2010, 04:23:37 PM

Quote from: Raver on June 14, 2010, 01:16:06 PM

My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

To be fair, Tom never claimed that he was measuring or calculating the 9.8m/s² value when he steps off the chair.  He was only demonstrating his assertion that the earth accelerates up to meet the observer.

So is it apart  of the conspiracy that the maths behind g line up with the purported mass/size of the earth?

Gravity doesn't not affect FE. Only UA. The "maths" behind the theory of gravity are irrelevant.

Not really. The math behind gravity predicts things that UA doesn't.
UA is a derp theory. In that it says derp, the earth is moving up at g.
gravity on the other hand predicts the orbit of the moon, Earth, Coriolis effect, gravitational time dilation, black holes, planetary movement, asteroids, commits, meteors just to name a few

It also fails to predict a number of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

That doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make the much less likely, unexplainable, unsupported and unproven "UA" correct.

Surely you believe it makes it wrong if it can't predict what its supposed to.  If it was "right" then we would have no more need to investigate gravity.  I'm not saying UA is right, but still...

Surely you believe it makes it wrong if it can't predict what its supposed to.  If it was "right" then we would have no more need to investigate gravity.  I'm not saying UA is right, but still...

Gravity isn't supposed to predict those things.

Are they things that stepping off a chair can predict?

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 03:06:26 AM

Surely you believe it makes it wrong if it can't predict what its supposed to.  If it was "right" then we would have no more need to investigate gravity.  I'm not saying UA is right, but still...

Gravity isn't supposed to predict those things.

Are they things that stepping off a chair can predict?

Falling off a chair isn't supposed to predict anything.  Its an action, not a model.

I never claimed gravity was supposed to predict anything.

I never claimed gravity was supposed to predict anything.

Whaaa? You said gravity fails to predict a number of things. That means it is supposed to predict something, but fails.

Falling off a chair isn't supposed to predict anything.  Its an action, not a model.

Good. Tell Tom that.

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 03:37:20 AM

I never claimed gravity was supposed to predict anything.

Whaaa? You said gravity fails to predict a number of things. That means it is supposed to predict something, but fails.

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 03:37:20 AM

Falling off a chair isn't supposed to predict anything.  Its an action, not a model.

Good. Tell Tom that.

EnglishGentleman said gravity fails to predict a number of things, not me.  You even quoted it and responded to it.

Tom was talking of UA, was he not? 

EnglishGentleman said gravity fails to predict a number of things, not me.  You even quoted it and responded to it.

And you posted:

Surely you believe it makes it wrong if it can't predict what its supposed to.

I replied to that post. Is this the part where we dance in a circle?

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 04:40:32 AM

EnglishGentleman said gravity fails to predict a number of things, not me.  You even quoted it and responded to it.

And you posted:

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 03:06:26 AM

Surely you believe it makes it wrong if it can't predict what its supposed to.

I replied to that post. Is this the part where we dance in a circle?

It being the theory of gravitation.  I imagine that one was an honest mistake on your part.

It being the theory of gravitation.  I imagine that one was an honest mistake on your part.

Nope. No mistake. This thread refers to gravity and gravitation, and have been used interchangeably, probably because in both uses we're talking about the earth. Is this the part where we dance in a circle?

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 10:24:53 AM

It being the theory of gravitation.  I imagine that one was an honest mistake on your part.

Nope. No mistake. This thread refers to gravity and gravitation, and have been used interchangeably, probably because in both uses we're talking about the earth. Is this the part where we dance in a circle?

This is the part where I cease wasting my time on your little games.

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Not really.  The equivalence principle essentially renders the stepping off a chair experiment inconclusive.

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:45:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Not really.  The equivalence principle essentially renders the stepping off a chair experiment inconclusive.

It is still evidence that some mechanism is at work.

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2010, 05:57:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:45:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Not really.  The equivalence principle essentially renders the stepping off a chair experiment inconclusive.

It is still evidence that some mechanism is at work.

True, but it can't provide any evidence as to which mechanism is at work.

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:10:39 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2010, 05:57:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:45:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Not really.  The equivalence principle essentially renders the stepping off a chair experiment inconclusive.

It is still evidence that some mechanism is at work.

True, but it can't provide any evidence as to which mechanism is at work.

The problem is the thing username claims round earth people use, bias. If there are two possibilities, he will pick the one that shows the earth being flat. He picks it out of no other reason than bias.  This can be seen in other topics too. 

As can be evidenced by his use of the phrase:

wibbly wobbly nonsense ball.

It is still evidence that some mechanism is at work.

But fails to identify exactly what.

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:10:39 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2010, 05:57:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:45:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Not really.  The equivalence principle essentially renders the stepping off a chair experiment inconclusive.

It is still evidence that some mechanism is at work.

True, but it can't provide any evidence as to which mechanism is at work.

Right, but it is not like it is discounted from evidence when it is relevant to the discussion.

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2010, 06:34:47 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:10:39 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2010, 05:57:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:45:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Not really.  The equivalence principle essentially renders the stepping off a chair experiment inconclusive.

It is still evidence that some mechanism is at work.

True, but it can't provide any evidence as to which mechanism is at work.

Right, but it is not like it is discounted from evidence when it is relevant to the discussion.

Tom Bishop does.  He seems to think that it only supports UA theory.

Quote from: John Davis on June 18, 2010, 06:56:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2010, 06:34:47 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:10:39 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2010, 05:57:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:45:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 17, 2010, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 03:11:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on June 17, 2010, 10:40:34 AM

To conclude: Stepping off a chair is not considered evidence on this forum.

eveyrone makes their own mind what is a valid evidence or not - dont group think or then everyone can be wrong together

He was being scientific, not "group thinking". 

He was doing no such thing and his conclusion was faulty.

Not really.  The equivalence principle essentially renders the stepping off a chair experiment inconclusive.

It is still evidence that some mechanism is at work.

True, but it can't provide any evidence as to which mechanism is at work.

Right, but it is not like it is discounted from evidence when it is relevant to the discussion.

Tom Bishop does.  He seems to think that it only supports UA theory.

Tom Bishop thinks too much and backs his thoughts up too little.