Debunking the UA hypothesis

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 04:45:46 PM

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

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.

Speaking of which, there is a trend brewing admitting that pixie dust is what makes math work out so "wonderfully".

http://myrtlehocklemeier.blogspot.com/2007/02/math-plus-with-pixie-dust.html

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 04:39:38 PM

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.

Feel free to read it in your spare time. I'm surprised you haven't.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 13, 2010, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 04:39:38 PM

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.

Feel free to read it in your spare time. I'm surprised you haven't.

Oh I have read it many times and am fully aware of its contents. That is why I am suggesting to you that you take the time to read it from cover to cover. You will find it a most enlightening read. Amazon stock several copies. I actually own 5.

Then perhaps you could tell me why Rowbotham invokes the "force of gravity" several times in the book while you assert otherwise?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 13, 2010, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 04:39:38 PM

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.

Feel free to read it in your spare time. I'm surprised you haven't.

Ski, you really did it now. You have no right to be the FE proponent when you haven't actually read the ENaG but just lightly skimmed it. Shame on you. Get your copy and start really reading it.

Then perhaps you could tell me why Rowbotham invokes the "force of gravity" several times in the book while you assert otherwise?

Please quote where I made such an assertion.

Quote from: Hazbollah on November 08, 2010, 09:55:33 AM

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?

Please, tell me where I said that.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 12:26:21 PM

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?

Please, tell me where I said that.

So, was your logic that if two objects had been accelerating the same amount of time, then they would have the same velocity with respect to an inertial observer?

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 05:38:00 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 13, 2010, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 04:39:38 PM

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.

Feel free to read it in your spare time. I'm surprised you haven't.

Ski, you really did it now. You have no right to be the FE proponent when you haven't actually read the ENaG but just lightly skimmed it. Shame on you. Get your copy and start really reading it.

Dr. Rowbotham is clearly a proponent of the "force of gravity".  I'm not sure how you can say otherwise. The good doctor and I may be on separate sides of the table on this issue, but I assure you that is where he stands.

Quote from: Hazbollah on November 14, 2010, 11:42:08 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 12:26:21 PM

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?

Please, tell me where I said that.

So, was your logic that if two objects had been accelerating the same amount of time, then they would have the same velocity with respect to an inertial observer?

no, his logic was that in ua theory a meteor, which is effected by Universal acceleration of 9.81m/s, falls becuase it accelerates for less time, and hence has less velocity.  he is trying to debunk this

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 01:49:18 AM

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 05:38:00 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 13, 2010, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 13, 2010, 04:39:38 PM

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.

Feel free to read it in your spare time. I'm surprised you haven't.

Ski, you really did it now. You have no right to be the FE proponent when you haven't actually read the ENaG but just lightly skimmed it. Shame on you. Get your copy and start really reading it.

Dr. Rowbotham is clearly a proponent of the "force of gravity".  I'm not sure how you can say otherwise. The good doctor and I may be on separate sides of the table on this issue, but I assure you that is where he stands.

Really Ski? If you really swear that you have read the ENaG the I must deduce that you have great problems with the understanding what you have read. The fact that the word gravity appears in ENaG does not in any way imply that Rowbotham is proponent of the gravity and he says that it exists. Really, take your time. Take a free a day or couple and sit down, make yourself cozy and delve deep into ENaG and try, really try to understand what is written there. Otherwise you only bring shame to your FE community.

Dr. Rowbotham is clearly a proponent of the "force of gravity".

Please quote from ENaG to back up your argument.

Dr. Rowbotham states the earth is unmoving and fixed. He does not believe in an earth that is accelerating upward like most proponents of the current finite disk theory (I believe Levee and Nov17 are the only excepted herein). He refers to the force of gravity to make his point about the earth having no orbital or axial movement in Chapter III of ENaG. If he didn't believe in the force of gravity, he would not use it in his thought experiment or in his description of the thought experiment(s).

 How about his chapter about tides - http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

Especially the claim at the beginning of the chapter:

It has been shown that the doctrine of the earth's rotundity is simply a plausible theory, having no practical foundation; all ideas, therefore, of
"centre of attraction of gravitation," "mutual mass attraction of earth and moon," &c. &c., as taught in the Newtonian hypothesis must be given up

 I also can't take all his other talk in this chapter like the talk of the proponent of the gravity.

 Also the next chapter where he says:

As the sun and moon, as well as comets and stars of every kind, can be proved by direct trigonometrical processes, to be within a few hundred miles of the earth's surface, and, as we have seen, in such a region bodies must be without gravity self-luminous and self-sustaining

 And his chapter about pendulum:

But this so-called argument proceeds and depends upon the assumption that the earth is a globe having a "centre of attraction of gravitation," towards which all bodies gravitate or fall

 And at last his general summary:

The doctrine of the universality of gravitation is a pure assumption

 Where do you see the Rowbotham as "proponent of the gravity" in the context of this kind of talk?

I recommend David Wardlaw Scott's (Terra Firma) chapter on attractive gravity for a broadly Rowbothamian "official line" typical of the 19th Century zeteticists. Scott's treatment of gravity, his arguments against it and the lucidity of his presented ideas, in my opinion, surpass Rowbotham's.

I recommend David Wardlaw Scott's (Terra Firma) chapter on attractive gravity for a broadly Rowbothamian "official line" typical of the 19th Century zeteticists. Scott's treatment of gravity, his arguments against it and the lucidity of his presented ideas, in my opinion, surpass Rowbotham's.

Reference: Google Books.

I found in a quick review that the text is worthless. For example the best proof of the repulsive nature of gravity is the flow of material from a comet away from the Sun. We know that the solar wind causes this and not gravity. Wouldn't it be great if FET actually matched reality for time to time?

Where do you see the Rowbotham as "proponent of the gravity" in the context of this kind of talk?

Ski? Did you read the ENaG already and can answer to that question?

But this so-called argument proceeds and depends upon the assumption that the earth is a globe having a "centre of attraction of gravitation," towards which all bodies gravitate or fall

The doctrine of the universality of gravitation is a pure assumption

It is clear from context that Dr. Rowbotham's issue is not gravity, as such. The issue is the manner gravitation is espoused by RET. He does not believe the earth is a sphere with a "centre of attraction", nor does he believe that the sun and moon exhibit gravity.

Quote

But this so-called argument proceeds and depends upon the assumption that the earth is a globe having a "centre of attraction of gravitation," towards which all bodies gravitate or fall

Quote

The doctrine of the universality of gravitation is a pure assumption

It is clear from context that Dr. Rowbotham's issue is not gravity, as such. The issue is the manner gravitation is espoused by RET. He does not believe the earth is a sphere with a "centre of attraction", nor does he believe that the sun and moon exhibit gravity.

So Rowbotham does not believe in the ULoG, but can't tell us what law should replace it. Rather useless yet again.