Australia

  • 79 Replies
  • 12624 Views
*

IOA

  • 507
Re: Australia
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2011, 06:21:36 AM »
Gravity is pretty clearly explained as a curve in spacetime...Universal Acceleration is explained by Dark Energy, which is somehow focused as a force accelerating us.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2011, 07:20:50 AM »
Because I haven't found an object yet that doesn't exhibit gravity.
Take a banana. Do you feel attracted to it?
If:
a) Yes, due to gravity - congratulations! You can now carry your banana into outer space and live on it!
b) No - Oh well, looks like we've found your object.
c) Yes, sexually - Well, uh, whatever floats your boat.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Australia
« Reply #32 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.

Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2011, 07:41:58 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!!!!!
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Australia
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2011, 08:29:36 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!!!!!

Can you see radiation?

?

Part of the Problem

  • 385
  • The Liberal
Re: Australia
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2011, 08:31:59 AM »
That's very convenient. It works, you just can't ever possibly see it!!!!!

But you can see the UA?
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2011, 09:27:37 AM »
Can you see radiation?
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*
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Australia
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2011, 09:32:22 AM »
http://www.indianscience.in/i3GB/blog/35/

This is an interesting article about it. I have just skimmed over it, I'll read it closely later, I'm kinda busy now, but if anyone notices something interesting, we could comment on it. Enjoy!
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42559
Re: Australia
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2011, 09:34:25 AM »
Can you see radiation?
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?
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2011, 09:45:13 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  ::)

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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Australia
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2011, 09:49:06 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?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Australia
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2011, 09:50:30 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  ::)

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.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2011, 10:10:26 AM »
That banana thing is just dumb. And lower school knowledge.
I agree that it's dumb. However, RE'ers generally tend to care about how convenient they claims are for them, regardlessly of their inanity.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thork

Re: Australia
« Reply #43 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.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Australia
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2011, 10:42:18 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  ::)
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Thork

Re: Australia
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2011, 10:49:50 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.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Australia
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2011, 11:02:31 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.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42559
Re: Australia
« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 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  ::)
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?

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.
Then perhaps you should look into the Cavendish experiment to see why gravity does and is therefore superior to UA in its predictive abilites.
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2011, 11:17:05 AM »
You criticized gravity because it could not be seen.
Now, why would you lie like that?

Yet you admit that the UA can not be directly observed either.
Now, why would you lie like that?

Both phenomena can be indirectly observed by their effects on other objects.
Now, why would you lie like that?

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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thork

Re: Australia
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2011, 11:22:23 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.
Seen it. No mention of bananas.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 11:31:02 AM by Thork »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Australia
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2011, 11:25:11 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.

?

Thork

Re: Australia
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2011, 11:34:33 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.
Now that would depend on the co-efficient of friction wouldn't it. Being as you don't know how much friction the objects in my room have, I suspect you are full of shit.
I also suspect you are also unable to tell me the coefficient of friction for a banana and so are just talking off the top of your head. You've no numbers, you can't observe it, but its RET so it must be true! Ostriches everywhere.   ::)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42559
Re: Australia
« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2011, 11:42:11 AM »
You criticized gravity because it could not be seen.
Now, why would you lie like that?
I didn't:
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!!!!!

Yet you admit that the UA can not be directly observed either.
Now, why would you lie like that?
I didn't:
Can you see radiation?
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*

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.

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.
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2011, 11:58:48 AM »
You criticized gravity because it could not be seen.
Now, why would you lie like that?
I didn't:
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!!!!!
You did. Ignoring my clarification does not magically grant you credibility points son lol.. 8)

Yet you admit that the UA can not be directly observed either.
Now, why would you lie like that?
I didn't:
Can you see radiation?
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*
Oh, so you did. Okay.

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.
So Einstein knew UAT. Now, why would you lie like that?

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.
I don't think I've seen a complete list of what gravity applies to, either. Usually it's just "all objects with mass".
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 12:00:23 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Australia
« Reply #54 on: January 11, 2011, 12:10:16 PM »
Can you see radiation?
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?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2011, 12:12:01 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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Australia
« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2011, 12:28:06 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 find it truly hilarious that you claim I "keep asking the same question" when it's actually the first time I have asked it of you.

www.rif.org


*

IOA

  • 507
Re: Australia
« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2011, 12:37:05 PM »
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Australia
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2011, 12:49:45 PM »
I am completely unaware of the plural "you".
I see.

Bananas do attract other things to it.
Demonstration pls.

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.
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?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 12:52:37 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

IOA

  • 507
Re: Australia
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2011, 01:24:20 PM »
Bananas do attract other things to it.
Demonstration pls.
Cavendish experiment.

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?
I could just as easily say that Universal Acceleration is something that doesn't happen. Watch. I just did.