Gravity as a universal law

  • 60 Replies
  • 15213 Views
*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2012, 08:10:39 PM »
It's a state of matter above plasma.

What does that mean? "Above", on what scale, exactly?


Would 'supraplasmic' be better for you?

Why would you suggest this? That prefix has a completely different meaning. You've just confirmed that you are speaking gibberish that you don't even understand yourself.


Do you have any other examples?

- hydrogen and helium "mixing" for no reason
- expanding to fill an infinite vacuum
- "flattening" Earth only vertically for no reason
- "aether"
- "infinite fluidity"
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2012, 08:10:56 PM »
It's a state of matter above plasma. What would you prefer me to call it?

How about Quark-Gluon Plasma?
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.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2012, 08:31:12 PM »
It's a state of matter above plasma. What would you prefer me to call it?

How about Quark-Gluon Plasma?
I don't see that working for him. It's still plasma.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2012, 06:19:28 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma. What would you prefer me to call it?

How about Quark-Gluon Plasma?
I don't see that working for him. It's still plasma.

It's a higher energy state of matter than plasma and it has the additional benefit of actually being discovered.
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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2012, 08:11:55 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma. What would you prefer me to call it?

How about Quark-Gluon Plasma?

Originally I was calling it that, but I don't know if that's actually what it is. There's a decent chance that it's beyond even that.

It's a state of matter above plasma.

What does that mean? "Above", on what scale, exactly?

Kinetic energy

Quote
Would 'supraplasmic' be better for you?

Why would you suggest this? That prefix has a completely different meaning. You've just confirmed that you are speaking gibberish that you don't even understand yourself.

From Cambridge Dictionary

super-
prefix ( OVER )  /suː.pər-//-pɚ-/
Definition
over; above


From Merriam-Webster
supra- prefix


1
: super- 2a <supraorbital>
2
: transcending <supranational>

Quote
Do you have any other examples?

- hydrogen and helium "mixing" for no reason
- expanding to fill an infinite vacuum
- "flattening" Earth only vertically for no reason
- "aether"
- "infinite fluidity"

1) *sigh* Some of the aether is hydrogen, some of it is helium. This is due to fusion
2) What makes this gibberish?
3) Because that is the direction of the force
4) What makes this gibberish? That's just my name for it
5) Yeah. The viscosity-1 is incredibly high, a state often referred to as 'near infinite'.

Just because you don't understand something or don't know a word doesn't mean I'm making things up.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2012, 08:43:51 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma. What would you prefer me to call it?

How about Quark-Gluon Plasma?

Originally I was calling it that, but I don't know if that's actually what it is. There's a decent chance that it's beyond even that.

The next state of matter past quark-gluon plasma is gravitational singularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Very_high_energy_states

BTW, super-fluidity generally occurs at very low energy states (liquid helium).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 08:45:48 AM by markjo »
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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2012, 08:50:31 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma. What would you prefer me to call it?

How about Quark-Gluon Plasma?

Originally I was calling it that, but I don't know if that's actually what it is. There's a decent chance that it's beyond even that.

The next state of matter past quark-gluon plasma is gravitational singularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Very_high_energy_states

BTW, super-fluidity generally occurs at very low energy states (liquid helium).

Where, exactly, does it say that? In fact, it quite clearly says that it isn't a state of matter.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2012, 09:07:57 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma.
What does that mean? "Above", on what scale, exactly?
Kinetic energy
Are you confusing kinetic energy with temperature? Why would the plasma's velocity be relevant here?

Since plasma includes all matter conditions less organized than gases, I still don't have a clue what you mean by before plasma. Are you thinking that it doesn't contained particles?

I really think you should learn high school physics before making up your explanations.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2012, 10:18:29 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma. What would you prefer me to call it?

How about Quark-Gluon Plasma?

Originally I was calling it that, but I don't know if that's actually what it is. There's a decent chance that it's beyond even that.

The next state of matter past quark-gluon plasma is gravitational singularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Very_high_energy_states

BTW, super-fluidity generally occurs at very low energy states (liquid helium).

Where, exactly, does it say that? In fact, it quite clearly says that it isn't a state of matter.

Well, it's next on the list of high energy states.  It seems that if your "superplasmic mixture" isn't a quark-gluon plasma, then there isn't any known higher state of matter.  In that case, you have some serious research ahead of you before you go around promoting a model that relies on an unknown state of matter.  Besides, as I said earlier, superfluidity is more a property of very low energy states (ex. Bose-Einstein condensate) rather than very high energy states.
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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2012, 10:29:40 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma.
What does that mean? "Above", on what scale, exactly?
Kinetic energy
Are you confusing kinetic energy with temperature? Why would the plasma's velocity be relevant here?

Since plasma includes all matter conditions less organized than gases, I still don't have a clue what you mean by before plasma. Are you thinking that it doesn't contained particles?

I really think you should learn high school physics before making up your explanations.

No, but you might be. Temperature is a measure of heat, which is the average of the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is what state of matter is dependent on. You can test this yourself, if you don't believe me. Boil some water with a thermometer in the water. Or even better, start with ice. You'll find that the temperature will abruptly stop changing while there is a change in state going on.

Also, this is a matter of high school chemistry, not physics.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2012, 10:41:26 AM »
No, but you might be. Temperature is a measure of heat, which is the average of the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is what state of matter is dependent on. You can test this yourself, if you don't believe me. Boil some water with a thermometer in the water. Or even better, start with ice. You'll find that the temperature will abruptly stop changing while there is a change in state going on.

Also, this is a matter of high school chemistry, not physics.

Temperature, phase changes and states of matter may be matters of chemistry but they are most definitely matters of physics.  It's not as if chemistry and physics are mutually exclusive.
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.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2012, 10:43:03 AM »
It's a state of matter above plasma.
What does that mean? "Above", on what scale, exactly?
Kinetic energy
Are you confusing kinetic energy with temperature? Why would the plasma's velocity be relevant here?

Since plasma includes all matter conditions less organized than gases, I still don't have a clue what you mean by before plasma. Are you thinking that it doesn't contained particles?

I really think you should learn high school physics before making up your explanations.

No, but you might be. Temperature is a measure of heat, which is the average of the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is what state of matter is dependent on. You can test this yourself, if you don't believe me. Boil some water with a thermometer in the water. Or even better, start with ice. You'll find that the temperature will abruptly stop changing while there is a change in state going on.

Also, this is a matter of high school chemistry, not physics.
Well, let's check your facts. Is temperature the average of the kinetic energy?

Nope. Temperature is the average of the kinetic energy of the molecules in an object or system.
Quote from: http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/temperature.htm
Definition: Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in an object or system and can be measured with a thermometer or a calorimeter. It is a means of determining the internal energy contained within the system.

Does your superplasma even have molecules? Let us know when your research on superplasma is complete enough to answer that question.

If you wanted to refer to the internal kinetic energy, the term you should be using is "temperature", not the unqualified "kinetic energy".

So tell us how this superplasma accelerates the FE--unless you're arguing, without any support, the your superplasma is heating up exponentially with time.

You're confused. Temperature is a topic included in both chemistry and physics.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2012, 11:16:27 AM »
I love how pedantic you get when you're told you're wrong. 'It's not the average kinetic energy! It's the average kinetic energy of the molecules!'

Quote
Does it have molecules/ions?
Maybe. I don't pretend to know.

Quote
How does it accelerate FE

It's a wind.

Quote
It's chemistry and physics

Then stop accusing me of not having taken the classes necessary to understand what I'm talking about.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 11:21:17 AM by Tausami »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2012, 12:31:25 PM »
Just because you don't understand something or don't know a word doesn't mean I'm making things up.

And just because you have made up stories to go with your made-up terms doesn't change the fact that you're making shit up. Two wrongs don't make a right; two idle speculations don't make evidence.


Quote
How does it accelerate FE

It's a wind.

Please learn the difference between acceleration and velocity and what it takes to maintain constant acceleration. You haven't answered the question at all. Wind doesn't do that.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2012, 12:47:36 PM »
Just because you don't understand something or don't know a word doesn't mean I'm making things up.

And just because you have made up stories to go with your made-up terms doesn't change the fact that you're making shit up. Two wrongs don't make a right; two idle speculations don't make evidence.


Quote
How does it accelerate FE

It's a wind.

Please learn the difference between acceleration and velocity and what it takes to maintain constant acceleration. You haven't answered the question at all. Wind doesn't do that.
Great post, zarg.

If Tausami doesn't know that physics involves temperature or the difference between velocity and acceleration, we can safely say he doesn't know enough to be speculating here.

Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2012, 11:13:04 PM »
My understanding of physics is fundamentally different to your own, as is my definition of an explanation. All answers in this 'debate' section are ultimately dodged or turned into another argument that can be confused to appear to be of a similar tract

I think I need to know more about the FET and their assertions. The Q&A doesn't go far enough. Is there anywhere I can find answered questions to the FET?
I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it ~ Terry Pratchett

?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2012, 04:44:48 AM »
My understanding of physics is fundamentally different to your own, as is my definition of an explanation. All answers in this 'debate' section are ultimately dodged or turned into another argument that can be confused to appear to be of a similar tract

I think I need to know more about the FET and their assertions. The Q&A doesn't go far enough. Is there anywhere I can find answered questions to the FET?
The definition of explanation is absolutely critical: while the Scientific Method shows a perfectly clear definition of explanation (what is needed to make predictions) the FE'ers are always trying to say that an explanation is whatever makes somebody exclaim "oh, now I understand".

Gravity explains the orbits of the planets because based on the formulas given by Newton we can predict the future position of any planet. On the other hand, with the idea of planets moving around a hovering Sun we cannot predict the future position of any planets, not even where the Sun will appear at dawn tomorrow for your location.

It is important to understand that in science the explanations have nothing to do with eloquence, they have to do with results. Saying, for example, that Super-plasma, or Supra-plasma, or Ultra-plasma exists is a bad attempt at eloquence, not a meaningful explanation of any kind.

?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2012, 04:50:25 AM »
1) *sigh* Some of the aether is hydrogen, some of it is helium. This is due to fusion
I have no idea why Tausami does not see that he is crying out loud and clear "I am stupid, and I do not care who finds out" every time he says something like this.

Hydrogen has mass. Helium has mass. Aether has no mass, if it exists at all. Aether is not hydrogen. Aether is not helium. Can you find physics any more elementary than this?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2012, 01:35:04 PM »
1) *sigh* Some of the aether is hydrogen, some of it is helium. This is due to fusion
I have no idea why Tausami does not see that he is crying out loud and clear "I am stupid, and I do not care who finds out" every time he says something like this.

Hydrogen has mass. Helium has mass. Aether has no mass, if it exists at all. Aether is not hydrogen. Aether is not helium. Can you find physics any more elementary than this?
I have a different take on his stupidity... Just like 'dark energy', FEers reused the term 'aether' to be 'something magical that I'll use in my special pleading fallacy'. They feel free to use the term in contrast to its historic meaning. I believe that the ever imaginative John Davis started the novel use of this term.

But even with his new invention, Tausami continues to look stupid. He claims, without evidence, that the "aether" is a "superplasm", so hot that it's creation lies beyond the abilities of Man. So, it's too hot to have molecules. So, it's too hot to have atoms. So, it's too hot to have neutrons or proton or electrons. So it's stupid to say that it contains hydrogen and helium. I think he knows that now and has conceded that his model is stupid.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2012, 06:53:18 AM »
i have an opinion about gravitation...
I think gravitation isn't from earth core to pull everything in earth surface go to earth core.

Gravitation is not pull but push ...

From atmosphere pushing to the earth core... thats why meteor or sky object isnt always come down to the earth.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2012, 08:15:49 AM »
i have an opinion about gravitation...
I think gravitation isn't from earth core to pull everything in earth surface go to earth core.

Gravitation is not pull but push ...

From atmosphere pushing to the earth core... thats why meteor or sky object isnt always come down to the earth.
So can you think of an experiment to demonstrate your "opinion"? Why not observe the Moon for a month to see if it's in orbit. If you're right, since the Moon is above the atmosphere, there's no atmosphere 'pushing' it to Earth. So it'll just fly away.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2012, 09:01:49 AM »
Excuse ClockTower, he drinks.

He is also well aware of the flaws of 'gravity' as a theory.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3115
  • +1/-0
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2012, 09:37:15 PM »
Excuse ClockTower, he drinks.

He is also well aware of the flaws of 'gravity' as a theory.

The bending of space time aorund massive objects works really well as a theory, which is the current theory of "gravity".  So what are you talking about?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #53 on: February 06, 2012, 06:19:31 AM »
He is also well aware of the flaws of 'gravity' as a theory.

Yeah, like you have a better one?

InB4myselfhavingtopostaboutlocalvariationsingravity
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2012, 03:25:44 PM »
Please see my sig for details on the formation of FE.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #55 on: February 16, 2012, 01:39:25 PM »
Please see my sig for details on the formation of FE.

Please refrain from low content posting.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Causeless

  • 12
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2012, 07:27:11 AM »
To be fair, I do indeed presume to know how the flat Earth was formed. My model of the universe is one where the Big Bang caused a superplasmic mixture of helium and hydrogen, which I refer to as aether, which has near infinite fluidity (it is not affected by van der Waals forces). Now, this aether abhors vacuums far more than other states of matter and can travel forever without losing significant energy (unless it hits something), both due to the aforementioned fluidity. Thus, there is an aetheric wind which expands into the universe, filling the infinite vacuum. The Earth rides on this wind, and has been flattened by the force of it.


If it's not affected by van der waals forces, there's nothing for the earth to be flattened against, since there's no viscous friction.

It would push an object of any shape, exerting equal pressure on all parts of it - the shape couldn't change.

You could argue that without the viscous friction, no force could be enacted on this earth whatsoever. This wind would slip off everything, why would it impart any force at all?

And this ignoring the fact that the wind would only accelerate the earth until a certain point once it's reached the same speed as the wind, thus eventually (and working through big-bang time-frames, long ago) it would've reached this speed, thus acceleration would no longer be applied. Everyone would essentially be in weightlessness.

However, considering you said this wind filled an infinite vacuum, we can assume there is an infinite amount of this wind. Thus, there would also be infinite momentum, so the wind would never lose any velocity. This means that this world would accelerate instantly, with an infinite amount of G's, and kill everyone.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 09:07:09 AM by Causeless »

?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #57 on: February 23, 2012, 01:32:47 AM »
To be fair, I do indeed presume to know how the flat Earth was formed. My model of the universe is one where the Big Bang caused a superplasmic mixture of helium and hydrogen, which I refer to as aether, which has near infinite fluidity (it is not affected by van der Waals forces). Now, this aether abhors vacuums far more than other states of matter and can travel forever without losing significant energy (unless it hits something), both due to the aforementioned fluidity. Thus, there is an aetheric wind which expands into the universe, filling the infinite vacuum. The Earth rides on this wind, and has been flattened by the force of it.


If it's not affected by van der waals forces, there's nothing for the flat earth to be flattened against, since there's no viscous friction.

It would push an object of any shape, exerting equal pressure on all parts of it - the shape couldn't change.

You could argue that without the viscous friction, no force could be enacted on this earth whatsoever. This wind would slip off everything, why would it impart any force at all?

And this ignoring the fact that the wind would only accelerate the earth until a certain point once it's reached the same speed as the wind, thus eventually (and working through big-bang time-frames, long ago) it would've reached this speed, thus acceleration would no longer be applied. Everyone would essentially be in weightlessness.

However, considering you said this wind filled an infinite vacuum, we can assume there is an infinite amount of this wind. Thus, there would also be infinite momentum, so the wind would never lose any velocity. This means that this world would accelerate instantly, with an infinite amount of G's, and kill everyone.
This fact, that an external force pushing the Earth up to what would now be more than 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light compared with the source of the wind, or whatever that is pushing the Earth, has always been ignored by the FE "theorists" that do not adhere to an infinite flat Earth.

By now the atoms that conform the wind would have to be accelerated so much that they would be, as seen from their original source (the wind producer of some kind) a lot bigger than basketballs. The recently inaugurated Large Hadron Collider would not even start to push an atom to this kind of energy. It would not even be like a squirt gun compared with the Big Bertha needed for the work. In fact, we have already calculated the force that would be needed, and you  would need more energy than the total energy of all the stars of the real universe.

And now they added a few more orders of magnitude to the energy equation by expecting this "wind" to be almost friction-less. Or just made the energy in the wind infinite.

There is no limit to the idiocy that these people put into the energy requirements of their theory, but they still don't see a problem.

?

chamtang

Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #58 on: March 02, 2012, 11:57:57 AM »
I am not getting it at all, can anybody can elaborate this.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Gravity as a universal law
« Reply #59 on: March 02, 2012, 12:26:12 PM »
To be fair, I do indeed presume to know how the flat Earth was formed. My model of the universe is one where the Big Bang caused a superplasmic mixture of helium and hydrogen, which I refer to as aether, which has near infinite fluidity (it is not affected by van der Waals forces). Now, this aether abhors vacuums far more than other states of matter and can travel forever without losing significant energy (unless it hits something), both due to the aforementioned fluidity. Thus, there is an aetheric wind which expands into the universe, filling the infinite vacuum. The Earth rides on this wind, and has been flattened by the force of it.


If it's not affected by van der waals forces, there's nothing for the earth to be flattened against, since there's no viscous friction.

It would push an object of any shape, exerting equal pressure on all parts of it - the shape couldn't change.

You could argue that without the viscous friction, no force could be enacted on this earth whatsoever. This wind would slip off everything, why would it impart any force at all?

And this ignoring the fact that the wind would only accelerate the earth until a certain point once it's reached the same speed as the wind, thus eventually (and working through big-bang time-frames, long ago) it would've reached this speed, thus acceleration would no longer be applied. Everyone would essentially be in weightlessness.

However, considering you said this wind filled an infinite vacuum, we can assume there is an infinite amount of this wind. Thus, there would also be infinite momentum, so the wind would never lose any velocity. This means that this world would accelerate instantly, with an infinite amount of G's, and kill everyone.

*pretending this post isn't old*

Van der Waals forces are an effect where non-polar molecules temporarily become polarized and affect the molecules around them in a chain reaction. It has nothing to do with collision.