Australia

Because I haven't found an object yet that doesn't exhibit gravity.

All objects affect others with gravity, the problem is our planet is the most massive one, so we cannot feel the smaller fields.

Quote from: Kira-SY on January 11, 2011, 07:26:34 AM

All objects affect others with gravity, the problem is our planet is the most massive one, so we cannot feel the smaller fields.

That's very convenient. It works, you just can't ever possibly see it!!!!!

That's very convenient. It works, you just can't ever possibly see it!!!!!

Can you see radiation?

But you can see the UA?

Quote from: Ranger 3 on January 11, 2011, 08:29:36 AM

Can you see radiation?

Quote from: Part of the Problem on January 11, 2011, 08:31:59 AM

But you can see the UA?

I can observe the results of radiation successfully, yes. I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it, which renders it vastly superior to gravity in that respect, for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm sorry, did my use of the word "see" confuse you? Just to be sure, here's a clarification, just for you 
Perceive*

In the same way that you can perceive the effects of the UA, you also perceive the effects of gravity.  So, how is UA superior to gravity again?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 09:27:37 AM

I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it

In the same way that you can perceive the effects of the UA, you also perceive the effects of gravity.  So, how is UA superior to gravity again?

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 09:34:25 AM

In the same way that you can perceive the effects of the UA, you also perceive the effects of gravity.  So, how is UA superior to gravity again?

Must people always POST POST POST without reading? You even quoted the answer to this question 

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 09:34:25 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 09:27:37 AM

I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it

i.e. UA doesn't predict bananas being magically attracted to me.

That banana thing is just dumb. And lower school knowledge.

Pizzaface is correct. Rowbotham never mentions the attractive force of bananas. And I have never found myself pulled across a room towards one nor do bananas creep towards me when I enter a room with bananas in it.

Quote from: Thork on January 11, 2011, 10:31:38 AM

Pizzaface is correct. Rowbotham never mentions the attractive force of bananas. And I have never found myself pulled across a room towards one nor do bananas creep towards me when I enter a room with bananas in it.

If you had instruments sensitive enough to measure a force that small, you might change your story 

Quote from: General Disarray on January 11, 2011, 10:42:18 AM

Quote from: Thork on January 11, 2011, 10:31:38 AM

Pizzaface is correct. Rowbotham never mentions the attractive force of bananas. And I have never found myself pulled across a room towards one nor do bananas creep towards me when I enter a room with bananas in it.

If you had instruments sensitive enough to measure a force that small, you might change your story 

Well surely that is something RErs should provide. Instruments to detect the invisible and unnoticeable attractive force of bananas to people that exists only in RET.
FET can save its time and resources for something more worthwhile.

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 09:34:25 AM

In the same way that you can perceive the effects of the UA, you also perceive the effects of gravity.  So, how is UA superior to gravity again?

Must people always POST POST POST without reading? You even quoted the answer to this question 

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 09:34:25 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 09:27:37 AM

I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it

i.e. UA doesn't predict bananas being magically attracted to me.

You criticized gravity because it could not be seen.

Yet you admit that the UA can not be directly observed either.

Both phenomena can be indirectly observed by their effects on other objects.

Now, I repeat my question, how is UA superior to gravity?

Quote from: Thork on January 11, 2011, 10:49:50 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on January 11, 2011, 10:42:18 AM

Quote from: Thork on January 11, 2011, 10:31:38 AM

Pizzaface is correct. Rowbotham never mentions the attractive force of bananas. And I have never found myself pulled across a room towards one nor do bananas creep towards me when I enter a room with bananas in it.

If you had instruments sensitive enough to measure a force that small, you might change your story  

Well surely that is something RErs should provide. Instruments to detect the invisible and unnoticeable attractive force of bananas to people that exists only in RET.
FET can save its time and resources for something more worthwhile.

See: Cavendish experiment.

Quote from: Thork on January 11, 2011, 10:31:38 AM

Pizzaface is correct. Rowbotham never mentions the attractive force of bananas. And I have never found myself pulled across a room towards one nor do bananas creep towards me when I enter a room with bananas in it.

If you had instruments sensitive enough to measure a force that small, you might change your story 

Quote from: General Disarray on January 11, 2011, 10:42:18 AM

Quote from: Thork on January 11, 2011, 10:31:38 AM

Pizzaface is correct. Rowbotham never mentions the attractive force of bananas. And I have never found myself pulled across a room towards one nor do bananas creep towards me when I enter a room with bananas in it.

If you had instruments sensitive enough to measure a force that small, you might change your story  

Considering that the force of friction is greater than any gravitational attraction on the objects around you, I think you are full of shit.

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

You criticized gravity because it could not be seen.

Now, why would you lie like that?

Quote from: Kira-SY on January 11, 2011, 07:26:34 AM

All objects affect others with gravity, the problem is our planet is the most massive one, so we cannot feel the smaller fields.

That's very convenient. It works, you just can't ever possibly see it!!!!!

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

Yet you admit that the UA can not be directly observed either.

Now, why would you lie like that?

Quote from: Ranger 3 on January 11, 2011, 08:29:36 AM

Can you see radiation?

Quote from: Part of the Problem on January 11, 2011, 08:31:59 AM

But you can see the UA?

I can observe the results of radiation successfully, yes. I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it, which renders it vastly superior to gravity in that respect, for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm sorry, did my use of the word "see" confuse you? Just to be sure, here's a clarification, just for you 
Perceive*

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

Both phenomena can be indirectly observed by their effects on other objects.

Now, why would you lie like that?

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

Now, I repeat my question, how is UA superior to gravity?

And I repeat my answer: UA is observable for all objects for which it is claimed to exist, as opposed to gravity.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 11:17:05 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

You criticized gravity because it could not be seen.

Now, why would you lie like that?

I didn't:

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 07:41:58 AM

Quote from: Kira-SY on January 11, 2011, 07:26:34 AM

All objects affect others with gravity, the problem is our planet is the most massive one, so we cannot feel the smaller fields.

That's very convenient. It works, you just can't ever possibly see it!!!!!

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 11:17:05 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

Yet you admit that the UA can not be directly observed either.

Now, why would you lie like that?

I didn't:

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: Ranger 3 on January 11, 2011, 08:29:36 AM

Can you see radiation?

Quote from: Part of the Problem on January 11, 2011, 08:31:59 AM

But you can see the UA?

I can observe the results of radiation successfully, yes. I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it, which renders it vastly superior to gravity in that respect, for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm sorry, did my use of the word "see" confuse you? Just to be sure, here's a clarification, just for you 
Perceive*

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 11:17:05 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

Both phenomena can be indirectly observed by their effects on other objects.

Now, why would you lie like that?

I didn't.  Einstein says that the UA and Gravity are locally indistinguishable.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 11, 2011, 11:17:05 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 AM

Now, I repeat my question, how is UA superior to gravity?

And I repeat my answer: UA is observable for all objects for which it is claimed to exist, as opposed to gravity.

Well, since there is no reference material concerning the UA, it's hard to find a definitive list of all objects for which UA is claimed to have an observable effect.

Quote from: Ranger 3 on January 11, 2011, 08:29:36 AM

Can you see radiation?

Quote from: Part of the Problem on January 11, 2011, 08:31:59 AM

But you can see the UA?

I can observe the results of radiation successfully, yes. I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it, which renders it vastly superior to gravity in that respect, for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm sorry, did my use of the word "see" confuse you? Just to be sure, here's a clarification, just for you 
Perceive*

You can observe the results...So what leads you to believe that UA is a superior theory than Gravity? You can't see UA, you can't see Gravity, but you trust one more than the other. Why?

Quote from: Ranger 3 on January 11, 2011, 12:10:16 PM

You can observe the results...So what leads you to believe that UA is a superior theory than Gravity? You can't see UA, you can't see Gravity, but you trust one more than the other. Why?

I find it truly hilarious how you keep asking the same question. My answer hasn't changed during the last hour.

I am completely unaware of the plural "you".

Bananas do attract other things to it.

If you pulled a large piece of cloth taut (preferably being held by an apparatus to hold all four corners) and put a metal ball in it, you would see (basically) what the effects of gravity are. Then put some other various sized balls around it and give them a velocity. Now you have balls essentially orbiting other balls. But now, put a ball the size of an atom in the middle and then put another ball 12x the size of that atom. Do you think the change in the cloth is great enough to observe such a thing?...

Maybe that's a better explanation of gravity for you, elementary-level so you can fully understand it.

Quote from: IOA on January 11, 2011, 12:37:05 PM

Bananas do attract other things to it.

Demonstration pls.

It is very elementary, indeed. And, in a very elementary way, demonstrates something that doesn't happen. Or, rather, it explains UA/gravity of the Earth, which is my point exactly. I take this is a submission?