Debunking the UA hypothesis

UA is an heavily flawed concept. It is inconsistent with reality, and any FE explanation is simply inadequate. Your explanation for meteor strikes is that 'they have not been accelerating for as long as the earth'. The thing is, while it may not have existed (hence been accelerating for the same amount of time) as a meteor for as long as the earth has existed, what it was formed from has (considering that matter does not have a habit of popping out of nowhere). Thus, that matter has been accelerating for as long as the earth. The same holds true for an object like a ball. It is accelerating upwards with the earth, and has been for as long as the earth has existed. Thus, the UA is disproven.

I don't get what you're saying. What's wrong with all matter accelerating at the same rate before the Earth forms?

They wouldn't hit the Earth, that's what I'm saying.

Universal Acceleration is demonstrable by the simplest of experiments. If you are within reach of an object which you can lift into the air and release, you have access to such an experiment.

Additionally, your characterisation of zetetic meteor theories is wildly inaccurate.

Please cite these zetetic meteor theories.

Universal Acceleration is demonstrable by the simplest of experiments. If you are within reach of an object which you can lift into the air and release, you have access to such an experiment.

Additionally, your characterisation of zetetic meteor theories is wildly inaccurate.

Brother James, I did your experimet and found that when I let go, the object fell to the Earth. You also now owe me an iPod touch for suggesting such a wild experiment.

Please cite these zetetic meteor theories.

Meteors fall from celestial bodies, they have not been "accelerating for less time than the Earth" except in cases where the celestial bodies have been (so, Solar and Lunar meteorites have technically been accelerating for less time than the Earth, but this is not really relevant).

Quote from: Crustinator on November 12, 2010, 05:54:38 PM

Please cite these zetetic meteor theories.

Meteors fall from celestial bodies, they have not been "accelerating for less time than the Earth" except in cases where the celestial bodies have been (so, Solar and Lunar meteorites have technically been accelerating for less time than the Earth, but this is not really relevant).

What are you trying to say? Meteors are falling space debris, outside, they are meteroids, and are celestial objects in and of themselves...for a long time they may revolve around the solar system,(we have proof of this), and some eventually fall in a meteor shower in the earth's atmosphere.
What exactly are solar meteorites?

There is no such thing as the Solar System, the notion that the Earth, or anything else, orbits a giant, flaming, spherical Sun is an insane globularist fantasy.

There is no such thing as the Solar System, the notion that the Earth, or anything else, orbits a giant, flaming, spherical Sun is an insane globularist fantasy.

are you willing to bet your life fortune, or even your life on this idea?

Why is there no solar system? We need evidence to say it doesn't exist. Globularist fantasy? give evidence for it.
Give evidence for an anti-moon that can't be explained by other things. Give hard evidence for the shape of the earth, we have some, pictures, geometry, visual evidence confirmed from space....etc. And countries all around the world, including bitter enemies, have acknowledged it for centuries, not agreed with it, DOWNRIGHT acknowledged it.

There is no such thing as the Solar System, the notion that the Earth, or anything else, orbits a giant, flaming, spherical Sun is an insane globularist fantasy.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Buck up or shut up.

Universal Acceleration is demonstrable by the simplest of experiments. If you are within reach of an object which you can lift into the air and release, you have access to such an experiment. 

How can this experiment distinguish Universal Acceleration from gravitational acceleration?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 12, 2010, 05:54:38 PM

Please cite these zetetic meteor theories.

Meteors fall from celestial bodies, they have not been "accelerating for less time than the Earth" except in cases where the celestial bodies have been (so, Solar and Lunar meteorites have technically been accelerating for less time than the Earth, but this is not really relevant).

Please provide evidence to back up your outrageous claims.

A meteor simply need be an object following a gravitational geodesic in a direction opposed to the Universal Acceleration. 

A meteor simply need be an object following a gravitational geodesic in a direction opposed to the Universal Acceleration. 

False. The UA would affect it like it does the Sun, Moon, planets, etc, keeping it aloft.

The Universal Accelerator would certainly still effect it. It need only experience a gravitational acceleration in a direction earthward that is greater than the "upward" acceleration provided by the UA. 

The Universal Accelerator would certainly still effect it. It need only experience a gravitational acceleration in a direction earthward that is greater than the "upward" acceleration provided by the UA. 

Just like everything else that is above us, such as the sun, moon, and stars. They stay up just fine.

Right. None of those objects are being accelerated in a geodesic which intersects the path of the earth.

Your explanation for meteor strikes is that 'they have not been accelerating for as long as the earth'. The thing is, while it may not have existed (hence been accelerating for the same amount of time) as a meteor for as long as the earth has existed, what it was formed from has (considering that matter does not have a habit of popping out of nowhere). Thus, that matter has been accelerating for as long as the earth.

I jump upwards and have speed larger than the speed of the Earth (relative to an inertial observer). Does that mean that I have existed longer than the Earth?

The Universal Accelerator would certainly still effect it. It need only experience a gravitational acceleration in a direction earthward that is greater than the "upward" acceleration provided by the UA. 

Sorry, no major physics fail. Please try again.

Acceleration is a vector quantity. An object may be accelerated by the universal accelerator and a geodesic at the same time. If the net acceleration is earthward, a meteor will fall from the sky despite the universal acceleration.

gravitational geodesic

LOL. Gravity does not exist. Please read ENaG.

Acceleration is a vector quantity. An object may be accelerated by the universal accelerator and a geodesic at the same time. If the net acceleration is earthward, a meteor will fall from the sky despite the universal acceleration.

So you're saying all you need is a 'magic' geodesic pointed toward Earth with downward component greater than 'g', right? Is there any other 'fiat' FET needs today?

Oh, and since you don't seem to understand, let me explain the physics error. An FET meteor need only to have a sufficient earth-bound velocity large enough to overcome the UA's effect that gets around the FE. An acceleration is overkill.

Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 07:35:11 PM

There is no such thing as the Solar System, the notion that the Earth, or anything else, orbits a giant, flaming, spherical Sun is an insane globularist fantasy.

are you willing to bet your life fortune, or even your life on this idea?

Yes, in fact, I hereby solemnly promise the sum of 10000 pounds GBP to the first person who can convince me otherwise.

Quote from: TrollCrusher on November 12, 2010, 07:42:23 PM

Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 07:35:11 PM

There is no such thing as the Solar System, the notion that the Earth, or anything else, orbits a giant, flaming, spherical Sun is an insane globularist fantasy.

are you willing to bet your life fortune, or even your life on this idea?

Yes, in fact, I hereby solemnly promise the sum of 10000 pounds GBP to the first person who can convince me otherwise.

Simply irrelevant to the challenge. Please respond to TC's fair question. Thanks.

Quote from: TrollCrusher on November 12, 2010, 07:42:23 PM

Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 07:35:11 PM

There is no such thing as the Solar System, the notion that the Earth, or anything else, orbits a giant, flaming, spherical Sun is an insane globularist fantasy.

are you willing to bet your life fortune, or even your life on this idea?

Yes, in fact, I hereby solemnly promise the sum of 10000 pounds GBP to the first person who can convince me otherwise.

You have yet to convince me that the earth is flat and claim the Crusty Gold Grand Prix.

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 11:57:17 AM

gravitational geodesic

LOL. Gravity does not exist. Please read ENaG.

First, ENaG takes "gravity" for granted; the only conclusion I can draw is that in all your time here, you have never actually read ENaG or familiarized yourself with the theory you are so zealously convinced is wrong. 

Second, you are correct: "Gravity does not exist". Third, I said gravitation, not gravity. It is fairly well accepted by the present members that the heavens exhibit gravitation.

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 12:41:59 PM

Acceleration is a vector quantity. An object may be accelerated by the universal accelerator and a geodesic at the same time. If the net acceleration is earthward, a meteor will fall from the sky despite the universal acceleration.

So you're saying all you need is a 'magic' geodesic pointed toward Earth with downward component greater than 'g', right?

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Oh, and since you don't seem to understand, let me explain the physics error. An FET meteor need only to have a sufficient earth-bound velocity large enough to overcome the UA's effect that gets around the FE. An acceleration is overkill.

While what you are saying is true -- How did the object obtain a "velocity large enough to overcome the UA's effect" without being first accelerated with a net acceleration in that direction?

Acceleration is a vector quantity. An object may be accelerated by the universal accelerator and a geodesic at the same time. If the net acceleration is earthward, a meteor will fall from the sky despite the universal acceleration.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 12:54:20 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 12:41:59 PM

Acceleration is a vector quantity. An object may be accelerated by the universal accelerator and a geodesic at the same time. If the net acceleration is earthward, a meteor will fall from the sky despite the universal acceleration.

So you're saying all you need is a 'magic' geodesic pointed toward Earth with downward component greater than 'g', right?

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Irrelevant. Would you please answer my simple question?

Quote

Oh, and since you don't seem to understand, let me explain the physics error. An FET meteor need only to have a sufficient earth-bound velocity large enough to overcome the UA's effect that gets around the FE. An acceleration is overkill.

While what you are saying is true -- How did the object obtain a "velocity large enough to overcome the UA's effect" without being first accelerated with a net acceleration in that direction?

Why would I care? FET has all sorts of magic.

First, ENaG takes "gravity" for granted; the only conclusion I can draw is that in all your time here, you have never actually read ENaG or familiarized yourself with the theory you are so zealously convinced is wrong. 

I'm sorry but only someone who has not read ENaG would say that.