UA vs gravity

  • 106 Replies
  • 17179 Views
?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2010, 11:40:23 PM »
IF UA was true.. The North Star would have gone below the horizon long ago, and starts in the sky near the horizon would go missing every few days.. UA is a pathetic argument to say the least, and giving the distance they claim we are from the sun, well, we would have slammed into it and long passed it up LMAO.. So by now there shouldn't be a sun if there is no such thing as Gravity lol..
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

Raver

  • 777
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2010, 02:50:55 AM »
Well the matter remains that my question has yet to be answered. Looks like a RE win.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 08:26:46 AM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2010, 06:30:45 AM »
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.

The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.

What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..


FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2010, 12:54:39 PM »
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.

The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.

What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..




UA would cause local gravity effects, because from the earths frame of reference, the projectile would be accelerating downward at g.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2010, 09:45:06 PM »
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.

The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.

What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..



Quote

UA would cause local gravity effects, because from the earths frame of reference, the projectile would be accelerating downward at g.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept

This is false, Upward force would have absolutely nothing to do with gravitational arc or pull.. And again this the object would not be accelerating downward unless you throw the ball at the ground (to which would not arc in this case). kiddo, if there is no gravitational pull in your little theory, UA would essentially be a horizontal zero G where the object wouldn't ark but rather come in contact with the ground once the ground catches up to the same horizontal plane.. Hence, if I tossed a ball up with zero vertical G the ball would never come back down because it would thus be traveling faster than the upward movement of the planet.. My GOD, where do you kids get your physics education from?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to physics.

Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept

It's called Energy son, energy self-oscillates, there is a reason why in thermodynamics absolute zero is impossible, it's because you can not stop energy from oscillating. It's the same reason why it's impossible to have -1 energy, or -1 spatial space.. And you do understand that matter is energy in different states correct? You do understand what the 4 stages of matter are, or what Zero point energy is correct?.


And lets take a look at the spotlight theory.. So tell me, when the Sun sets in the east and the disk you call the spotlight is on the Horizon line shining across the flat plane horizontally, how in the world is the same flat disk magically facing straight down at high noon at another position on Earth.. Do you people even think before you post this garbage? If the sun is setting it should be setting for the entire planet to the west at the same time in terms of visual reference of the spherical disks position you silly rabbit. So calling another part of the world where the sun is at High noon while it's setting here on the western horizon makes no logical sense in terms of a flat Earth with some magical disk spot light...

The fact that I have flown around the world, and sailed around the world, I know better than to consider such delusional nonsense as a flat Earth. What's even worse, You couldn't see the moon from all four sides of the planet to which is magically outside this spotlight, and this would be due to the spotlight being in the way, or line of site!. You would thus need 4 magically identical moons, and that would have angular problems setting to the west and rising eastward. Also at some point 2 or even all 4 moons would be visible to any given point of reference.. it's just gets really ridiculous really fast.. Apparently you haven't done your homework , and you can feel free to show us the spotlight effect 28 miles in the darkness looking across the horizon of (a light flashing down as it moves across a flat plane)..  It's just simply biblical nonsense. Hell, if you put people at the 4 corners of your flat earth, none of them would see a flat sun disk or spotlight shining in their face if it were a flat disk shining down at high noon over a flat plane. It would be a visible cone shaped ray of light to where they would only see the rim of the disk (source of light)..Good luck showing that!. Thus you can't place a 2d disk spotlight object above a flat plane without epically failing in regards to angular point of view when I can call another place on the globe and have it at high noon while it's setting  on the western horizon from my point of view, and this couldn't be done without both the sun and the Earth being spheres kiddo., And this becomes even more of an epic fail as I call other points of view, or places on the globe to where I add 4 or even 50 other sources of reference.. And then you have to explain why the sun is setting to the West while it's rising to the East at another location LOL.. Hello! That can only be done if the Planet is a Sphere people! Your Logic is laughable. 


So, do you know how to navigate by the stars and the sun? Do you comprehend why it would be impossible to sail around the world on a flat Earth, or even get lost, much less continue east or west to end up around the world and back where you started from? .. I can tell that many people here are not very intelligent, or are intentionally spreading nonsense in a religious manner. This site is the same reason why they make videos at why people laugh at creationists.

And it's very interesting that my original post here gets Locked,

So you have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the fact that I can sail from Boston to Japan (2 year trip for me with stops along the way), And from Japan to Jhonston Atoll Island, and then to Hawii and California. (All together a 3.5 year voyage). And you are going to have to explain why the Sun, Stars, and GPS all directed me to exactly where I needed to GO without the Stars or Sun being on the wrong side of the Boat LOL.. What's worse, you FET's need to actually establish where on the global map to which I can not cross going east, west, south, and north.. Hence you are going to have to prove your ridiculous argument by unfolding the the spherical map LOL... Thus, if you divide it between Alaska and Asia, we shouldn't be able to see Russia from Alaska (sorry Palin joke)..

« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 11:56:24 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2010, 10:38:53 PM »
WEll as the matter remains my question has remained unanswered. Looks like a RE win.

The other idiotic notion of UA is that it shows how stupid people are in terms of physics.. Up ward force to describe how we stay on this planet is moronic, and does not even account for the arc of lets say a projectile traveling along the horizontal plane. Such as tossing a ball.. Upward force LMAO, who comes up with nonsensical garbage?.. For petes sake people, FN call another country on the other side of the planet and ask them where the Damn Sun is in the sky. Like I said, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out the planet is a Sphere and this site, from what I can tell, is a religious site based on the bible, or to support creationism. It amazes me to say the least that anyone would take this site with any sort of seriousness. And it also really tells me that these people don't even understand the basics of Electromagnetism, or particle physics.

What we have here is a Society of Epic Fail in regards to intelligence..



Quote

UA would cause local gravity effects, because from the earths frame of reference, the projectile would be accelerating downward at g.
Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept

This is false, Upward force would have absolutely nothing to do with gravitational arc or pull.. And again this the object would not be accelerating downward unless you throw the ball at the ground (to which would not arc in this case). kiddo, if there is no gravitational pull in your little theory, UA would essentially be a horizontal zero G where the object wouldn't ark but rather come in contact with the ground once the ground catches up to the same horizontal plane.. Hence, if I tossed a ball up with zero vertical G the ball would never come back down because it would thus be traveling faster than the upward movement of the planet.. My GOD, where do you kids get your physics education from?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to physics.

Now as to what causes this infinite constant force, IDK. And thats why its a stupid concept

It's called Energy son, energy self-oscillates, there is a reason why in thermodynamics absolute zero is impossible, it's because you can not stop energy from oscillating. It's the same reason why it's impossible to have -1 energy, or -1 spatial space.. And you do understand that matter is energy in different states correct? You do understand what the 4 stages of matter are, or what Zero point energy is correct?.


And lets take a look at the spotlight theory lol.. So tell me, when the Sun sets in the east and the disk you call the spotlight is on the Horizon line shining across the flat plane horizontally, how in the world is the same flat disk magically facing straight down at high noon at the other side of the planet LMAO.. Do you people even think before you post this garbage?.. Hence, if the sun is setting it should be setting for the entire planet to the west  at the same time you silly rabbit. So me calling another part of the world where the sun is in High noon while it's setting makes no logical sense in terms of a flat Earth with some magical spot light... And  the fact that I have flown around the world, and sailed around the world, I know better than to consider such delusional nonsense as a flat Earth.. What's even worse, You couldn't see the damn moon from all four sides of the planet to which is magically outside this spotlight because the spotlight would be in the way, or line of site LOL, You would need 4 magically identical moons lol, and that would have angular problems setting west ward and rising eastward, and at some point all 4 moons would be visible.. it's just gets really ridiculous really fast.. Apparently you haven't done your homework.. And you can feel free to show us the spotlight effect 28 miles in the darkness looking across the horizon of a magical light flashing down as it moves across a flat plane..  It's just simply biblical nonsense.

Tell me, do you know how to navigate by the stars and the sun? Do you comprehend why it would be impossible to sail around the world on a flat Earth, or even get lost, much less continue east or west to end up around the world and back where you started from? .. I can tell that many people here are not very intelligent, or are intentionally spreading nonsense in a religious manner. This site is the same reason why they make videos at why people laugh at creationists.

And it's very interesting that my original post here gets Locked,

So you have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the fact that I can sail from Boston to Japan (2 year trip for me with stops along the way), And from Japan to Jhonston Atoll Island, and then to Hawii and California. (All together a 3.5 year voyage). And you are going to have to explain why the Sun, Stars, and GPS all directed me to exactly where I needed to GO without the Stars or Sun being on the wrong side of the Boat LOL.. What's worse, you FET's need to actually establish where on the global map to which I can not cross going east, west, south, and north.. Hence you are going to have to prove your ridiculous argument by unfolding the the spherical map LOL... Hence, if you divide it between Alaska and Asia, we shouldn't be able to see Russia from Alaska (sorry Palin joke).



I''m saying, what could cause The earth to move upward at g?
the energy source would have to move too, obviously the FE model is constantly increasing in energy, which is pretty stupid

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2010, 11:09:31 PM »
Quote
I''m saying, what could cause The earth to move upward at g?
the energy source would have to move too, obviously the FE model is constantly increasing in energy, which is pretty stupid

Direct Answer.. Another Star, Planet, or even a Black hole.. It would require another attractor, or exerted force to move Earth from it's orbit. However, our Sun and the solar system is in fact moving relative to other galaxies ect. You can say it's moving up relative to another object, or moving down relative to another object.

In regards to why UA is laughable,

The Earth moving upward only has energy moving in 1 direction, and that is up!. Their would be no horizontal G, and if you tossed a ball straight up, it's energy would be greater than the up force energy from the Planet.. And since there would be no gravitational "pull" there would be zero vertical G, and only vertical energy.. Hence, the ball would never come down because there is no gravity to pull it back down.. Thus the ball would actually leave Earth and never come back while continuing to increase distance due to the vertical velocity and energy being greater than the Earth's. UA is inherently a laughable concept because under this concept I could actually jump off the face of the Earth and never come back.. It's apparently obvious that nobody here understands how gravity works, or how energy and G-force is applied and applicable in regards to vertical and horizontal planes.. The reason why you can jump in an elevator to where the elevator can catch up to you is because there is gravitational pull.. UA equals epic fail.. What's even more interesting is that without gravitational pull, you wouldn't weigh anything.. Hence if you are standing in a field, your vertical energy and velocity would be equal to that of the earth's.. This is kind of like how you can travel in a car at 60 mph without being pinned to the back seat unable to freely move about.. Now imagine that in zero G.. The other problem is that It wouldn't rain under UA without gravitational pull, it's really difficult to have weather patterns, and cycles if all energy is vertical energy in terms of velocity.

The UA argument is like listening to someone who posted the following

Quote
Our FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics

They obviously have no clue in regards to the second law, much less understand all the laws of thermodynamics.. It's like watching laymen morons post philosophical ideological circular nonsense.. Hence, pretending to actually know wtf they are talking about while phishing for people they can actually brainwash into their little ideology.. You do realize this site is in regards to the Christian faith, or bible correct?.. It's essentially a creationist website. 
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 12:39:00 AM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

Raver

  • 777
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2010, 08:10:36 AM »
^Is a winner. UA vs Gravity=Gavity wins
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2010, 03:55:25 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

As regards the rest of your post, I think your misconception lies in the fact that you are completely ignorant of Einstein's equivalence principle.  Please look that up because despite what the cheerleader above says you have no idea what you're talking about.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #69 on: July 17, 2010, 04:12:40 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

As regards the rest of your post, I think your misconception lies in the fact that you are completely ignorant of Einstein's equivalence principle.  Please look that up because despite what the cheerleader above says you have no idea what you're talking about.
Wrong. RET has gravity in all directions. No EP doesn't not explain the evidence against the UA.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #70 on: July 17, 2010, 04:15:24 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

As regards the rest of your post, I think your misconception lies in the fact that you are completely ignorant of Einstein's equivalence principle.  Please look that up because despite what the cheerleader above says you have no idea what you're talking about.
Wrong. RET has gravity in all directions. No EP doesn't not explain the evidence against the UA.

You should learn to consider context before posting that someone is wrong.  You'll be wrong less often that way.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-115
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #71 on: July 17, 2010, 04:48:19 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #72 on: July 17, 2010, 04:53:09 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.

See, you're just being pedantic.  There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of.  It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth.  The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #73 on: July 17, 2010, 05:08:50 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.

See, you're just being pedantic.  There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of.  It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth.  The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
1) There is no horizontal G with gravity either
2) There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity
3) ?
 ::)
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #74 on: July 17, 2010, 05:10:10 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.

See, you're just being pedantic.  There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of.  It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth.  The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
1) There is no horizontal G with gravity either
2) There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity
3) ?
 ::)


As I said about markjo, you're being pedantic.  It's okay, I guess it's all you've got.  
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Raver

  • 777
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #75 on: July 17, 2010, 05:26:06 PM »
The "cheerleader" here says that you are wrong Roundy,  but will not admit to being so. You misunderstood (or just could not grasp) what Jackel was saying, you therefor try to attack his argument (pluspoints for attacking the argument for once and not the person making it) but fail utterly as shown by Clocktower and Markjo. Rather than admitting you are wrong, you instead commit blindly to your statement, basically because you are scared to lose face. Obviously debating isn't something that lies very well with you.

Oh btw Roundy, you once again (you really do like showing this off don't you?) show to us that a high post count does not say anything about post quality, as shown by you insulting people and resorting to altering your own statements after you have made them.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 05:30:04 PM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #76 on: July 17, 2010, 05:32:50 PM »
The "cheerleader" here says that you are wrong Roundy,  but will not admit being so. You misunderstood (or just could not grasp) what Jackel was saying, you therefor try to attack his argument (pluspoints for attacking the argument for once and not the person making it) but fail utterly as shown by Clocktower and Markjo. Rather than admitting you are wrong, you instead commit blindly to your statement, basically because you are scared to lose face. Obviously debating isn't something that lies very well with you.

I misunderstood nothing.  It's a fact: he's wrong about his claims about UA vs gravity, and he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

I believe I corrected my previous mistake.  Yes, I just admitted that I made a mistake, which is more than ClockTower has ever done.  My mistake doesn't change that the post TheJackel made is completely ignorant of the equivalent principle and he makes a number of incorrect assumptions.  Or that the kind of "horizontal gravity" that was brought up would not be experienced in any way like he envisions.

I'm afraid that if you thought TheJackel won the debate with that wall of falsities you don't understand what is being discussed either.  Perhaps you should look up the equivalent principle before posting on the subject as well.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Raver

  • 777
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #77 on: July 17, 2010, 05:49:27 PM »
You are basically saying everyone but you understands anything and should STFU. I thought Hitler died a long time ago?
The matter remains that you said Jackel is wrong about the whole "horizontal G" thing, which he is not, you are wrong as shown by Clocktower and Markjo. Not only that. You then continue to contradict yourself and being a rude swine for afforementioned reason. And the best you can do is cry "pedantics"? You out of ALL people on this site have the nerve to claim they are being pedantic?
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #78 on: July 17, 2010, 05:50:29 PM »
Their would be no horizontal G

There is no horizontal G with gravity either.

Actually, there is, as demonstrated by Cavendish.

See, you're just being pedantic.  There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity, but it does not have the effect TheJackel speaks of.  It would have no noticeable effect on a projectile falling to the Earth.  The forced caused by the gravity of the Earth is entirely downward.
1) There is no horizontal G with gravity either
2) There is a negligible amount of horizontal gravity
3) ?
 ::)


As I said about markjo, you're being pedantic.  It's okay, I guess it's all you've got.  
So you can't respond to the challenge that you don't understand EP. It's okay. I guess it's all you've got.

Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally. There is non-negligible 'gravity' that is not straight down. Thus the UA is falsified and with it FET.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #79 on: July 17, 2010, 05:50:40 PM »
No, he is just saying that TheJackel does not understand a fundamental physical fact.

EDIT:

Clocktower is Gulliver.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #80 on: July 17, 2010, 05:51:43 PM »
You are basically saying everyone but you understands anything and should STFU.

Not at all.  I'm saying you should familiarize yourself with the subject material before commenting on it.  It's not like I'm saying you're wrong without giving any indication of why; I told you what you need to look up to see for yourself why you're wrong.  Are you going to do it, or will you choose to keep making an ass of yourself?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #81 on: July 17, 2010, 05:55:33 PM »
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.

TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity.  Do try to keep up.

Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #82 on: July 17, 2010, 05:58:32 PM »
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.

TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity.  Do try to keep up.


Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #83 on: July 17, 2010, 06:02:51 PM »
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.

TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity.  Do try to keep up.


Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.

So when Wikipedia says on its page about EP

Quote
In the physics  of general relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational  and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

it's talking about a point "standing" on a massive body?  Yeah, whatever.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Raver

  • 777
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #84 on: July 17, 2010, 06:12:48 PM »
Roundy, you are being childish now  :-\. I am wrong because I am wrong and should show myself why I am wrong? Furthermore I would like to point out that I can't actually be wrong about anything seeing as I haven't actually made a statement on the topic at hand (the whole horizontal G discussion etc. on the perceding page), all I was doing was showing how your posts are flawed and obnoxious.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #85 on: July 17, 2010, 06:14:24 PM »
Even in the narrow confines of the Einstein 'thought' elevator, we know that the EP applies only locally.

TheJackel was discussing the local effects of gravity.  Do try to keep up.


Wrong again. Local in the EP means at a point only, not over the distance a real-world object travels. You might want to understand EP before commenting again.

So when Wikipedia says on its page about EP

Quote
In the physics  of general relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational  and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

it's talking about a point "standing" on a massive body?  Yeah, whatever.
Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #86 on: July 17, 2010, 06:15:11 PM »
Roundy, you are being childish now  :-\. I am wrong because I am wrong and should show myself why I am wrong?

Where do you get that from?  No, you are wrong because you don't understand what you're talking about and should look it up before commenting.  How exactly is that childish?  How is it the least bit unreasonable?

Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.

So points are capable of observation, now?  That's very interesting.  Would you care to back that up?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #87 on: July 17, 2010, 06:18:03 PM »

Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.

So points are capable of observation, now?  That's very interesting.  Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #88 on: July 17, 2010, 06:22:27 PM »

Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.

So points are capable of observation, now?  That's very interesting.  Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.

Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then.  By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation.  Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

But please, do try.  You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: UA vs gravity
« Reply #89 on: July 17, 2010, 06:31:10 PM »

Yes, it is. Once you move from that point, such a the ball moving as it's thrown up, EP is no longer true.

So points are capable of observation, now?  That's very interesting.  Would you care to back that up?
I never said points are capable of observation, but 2 out 10 on the dodge attempt.

Read the quoted part from the Wikipedia page, then.  By stating that EP is only experienced by a point you are directly implying that points are capable of observation.  Unless you can explain how I'm misinterpreting the statement that "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

But please, do try.  You are most entertaining when you are shown to be wrong and then, rather than admit your error, try like mad to justify it.

Again, I never said that EP is only experienced by a point. Again, the ball in TheJackel's post is not at the point, so it experiences forces that are not governed by the EP when applied to the first point. I've said this to you several times. I would hope by now you can see your error.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards