Gravity??? WHat about that??

Ok so i can understand that there are theories supporting the whole Fe thing, but if the earth is flat then how do you explain gravity? because if the earth was flat and spinning then everything would be spun outward...obviously.

Read the FAQ lol you dum fgt. In all seriousness, gravity =/= graviational pull, and they explain it with magic, which is also called universal acceleration.

Read the FAQ. Ctrl-F "gravity" "gravitation" or "Universal Acceleration".

FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own. Relying of the EP and ignoring the Cavendish results, FE decided to have an unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable Universal Accelerator provide a poor mimic of gravity.

You need only say Cavendish, g varies with height regardless of the stars overhead at the time, or gravity on Earth is radial and tidal to dispel their UA and their theory. Unfortunately they did manage to obscure their failing from those not well-versed in EP. Even today lesser educated (Note this is no way is meant to impugn anyone's intelligence!) REers are tripped up by how they use the EP successfully. (Marbles in dough for dinner, anyone?)

FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own.

Yes, we reject theories that do not describe reality. How dare we?

Relying of the EP and ignoring disputing the Cavendish results, FE decided to have an unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable Universal Accelerator provide a poor mimic of gravity.

I'm sorry, in what was is UA " unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable" and how is it a poor mimic of gravity, by which I assume you really mean gravitation?

You need only say Cavendish,

Which has been disputed.

g varies with height regardless of the stars overhead at the time,

wat. Do you think stars disappear during the day time? Does the world also disappear when mommy closes the shades?

or gravity on Earth is radial and tidal to dispel their UA and their theory.

Please elaborate.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own.

Yes, we reject theories that do not describe reality. How dare we?

Gee... P. just told us that you do accept that trees have gravitational attraction, accepting a theory that does not describe reality. Golly. I have to wonder about the FEers and their theory. It's sure is odd that a theory can't be expressed consistently. I'll eagerly await your next dodge or weave.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own.

Yes, we reject theories that do not describe reality. How dare we?

Gee... P. just told us that you do accept that trees have gravitational attraction, accepting a theory that does not describe reality. Golly. I have to wonder about the FEers and their theory. It's sure is odd that a theory can't be expressed consistently. I'll eagerly await your next dodge or weave.

I'm going to be completely honest, I have no idea what the fuck you're saying.

He says that you're wrong, because Parsifal said something else in another thread.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

You need only say Cavendish,

Which has been disputed.

Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

g varies with height regardless of the stars overhead at the time,

wat. Do you think stars disappear during the day time? Does the world also disappear when mommy closes the shades?

I do not think that stars disappear during the daytime. You're just trolling.

I'm sorry, in what was is UA " unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable" and how is it a poor mimic of gravity, by which I assume you really mean gravitation?

If you'll express your question in the form of a sentence, I'll try to answer it more thoroughly. Perhaps 'was' should be 'way'?

Unless you're going to tell me that you believe in GR and what experiments on the FE validate it, I see no reason to deal with the difference between gravity and gravitational attraction. If you're going to accept GR then the next paragraph applies.

As explained repeatedly, the UA cannot explain the radial nature of gravity. Do you have a question about this? You do understand that the EP applies only locally, right? So the UA fails to predict the measured curvature of the force.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

You need only say Cavendish,

Which has been disputed.

Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.

It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM

I'm sorry, in what was is UA " unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable" and how is it a poor mimic of gravity, by which I assume you really mean gravitation?

If you'll express your question in the form of a sentence, I'll try to answer it more thoroughly. Perhaps 'was' should be 'way'?

Unless you're going to tell me that you believe in GR and what experiments on the FE validate it, I see no reason to deal with the difference between gravity and gravitational attraction. If you're going to accept GR then the next paragraph applies.

As explained repeatedly, the UA cannot explain the radial nature of gravity. Do you have a question about this? You do understand that the EP applies only locally, right? So the UA fails to predict the measured curvature of the force.

Please elaborate on the "radial nature of gravity", and please state how it is relevant to UA and gravitation?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 12:22:20 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

You need only say Cavendish,

Which has been disputed.

Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.

It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
 

Anything, whether true or false, can be disputed in that sense, so your point is worthless. Do try harder.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 01:31:12 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 12:22:20 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

You need only say Cavendish,

Which has been disputed.

Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.

It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
 

Anything, whether true or false, can be disputed in that sense, so your point is worthless. Do try harder.

You're doing just that in another thread. Why can you, and why can he not?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 01:31:12 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 12:22:20 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

You need only say Cavendish,

Which has been disputed.

Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.

It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
 

Anything, whether true or false, can be disputed in that sense, so your point is worthless. Do try harder.

You're doing just that in another thread. Why can you, and why can he not?

If so, I do apologize. Please tell me where so I can fix my mistake. Where do I challenge anything without logic or evidence?

That would be the entire "R's 100 Proofs, one at a time." thread.

That would be the entire "R's 100 Proofs, one at a time." thread.

Do elaborate. I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter and his proofs, not me. The RE team need only demonstrate that each proof is faulty, and that can mean pointing out logic errors, lack of evidence, and a variety of other approaches.

I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter

Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 02:05:54 PM

I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter

Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.

Correct. It has been previously resolved definitely, but thanks for trying.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 03, 2010, 02:16:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 02:05:54 PM

I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter

Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.

Correct. It has been previously resolved definitely, but thanks for trying.

It has, but not to your favour. Good attempt, though.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 02:19:01 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 03, 2010, 02:16:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 02:05:54 PM

I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter

Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.

Correct. It has been previously resolved definitely, but thanks for trying.

It has, but not to your favour. Good attempt, though.

A good debate tutorial for you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.

What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.

What sensible question have you posed that I've not answered?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 03, 2010, 02:29:33 PM

What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.

What sensible question have you posed that I've not answered?

The one that has been asked by myself in this thread, quite obviously.

Ooh, another beat around the bushes thread, lovely, do tell me when you decide to get back on topic.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 12:22:20 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:20:27 AM

You need only say Cavendish,

Which has been disputed.

Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.

It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

That was the implication.

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 03, 2010, 07:23:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2010, 05:08:29 PM

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.