Clouds and UA

scavs fails to realise that most people believe in good science and DO take the word of others. the experiments have been done and the papers have been published. there is no need to do it again.
if we didnt move forward like that then we would all be inventing the wheel every week

This post is random, non-nonsensical, and verging on low content. If you can think of something relevant to the discussion, please feel free to post again.

Quote from: chrondog on April 11, 2012, 07:38:19 PM

I have a thread that I think does a pretty good job at disproving UA here.

Here are the experiments that are used to disprove UA.

1. The Cavendish Experiment

- A counter argument of The Cavendish Experiment here

2. Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity

3. On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation

4. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos Page 41

5.
GOING DEEP: A SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR DETECTING 
DEEPLY BURIED FACILITIES FROM SPACE Chapter 4

I think you don't understand how a proof might work. Providing evidence for one theory does not disprove the other.

Wrong. When two theories are mutually exclusive, such as RET with any FET, providing evidence for one can indeed disprove the other.

For example:
Theory 1: Jupiter is less than 3100 miles above the Earth.
Theory 2: Jupiter is more than 3100 miles above the Earth.

These theories are mutually exclusive.

Irrefutable evidence of Theory 1 disproves Theory 2.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 11, 2012, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: chrondog on April 11, 2012, 07:38:19 PM

I have a thread that I think does a pretty good job at disproving UA here.

Here are the experiments that are used to disprove UA.

1. The Cavendish Experiment

- A counter argument of The Cavendish Experiment here

2. Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity

3. On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation

4. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos Page 41

5.
GOING DEEP: A SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR DETECTING 
DEEPLY BURIED FACILITIES FROM SPACE Chapter 4

I think you don't understand how a proof might work. Providing evidence for one theory does not disprove the other.

Wrong. When two theories are mutually exclusive, such as RET with any FET, providing evidence for one can indeed disprove the other.

For example:
Theory 1: Jupiter is less than 3100 miles above the Earth.
Theory 2: Jupiter is more than 3100 miles above the Earth.

These theories are mutually exclusive.

Irrefutable evidence of Theory 1 disproves Theory 2.

Wrong. Simply because a theory is mutually exclusive does not mean you have disproved one over the other. You simply provided more evidence towards one. If you have irrefutable evidence, then it is not a theory any more and therefore you are not using a theory to disprove another theory.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 11, 2012, 08:05:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 11, 2012, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: chrondog on April 11, 2012, 07:38:19 PM

I have a thread that I think does a pretty good job at disproving UA here.

Here are the experiments that are used to disprove UA.

1. The Cavendish Experiment

- A counter argument of The Cavendish Experiment here

2. Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity

3. On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation

4. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos Page 41

5.
GOING DEEP: A SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR DETECTING 
DEEPLY BURIED FACILITIES FROM SPACE Chapter 4

I think you don't understand how a proof might work. Providing evidence for one theory does not disprove the other.

Wrong. When two theories are mutually exclusive, such as RET with any FET, providing evidence for one can indeed disprove the other.

For example:
Theory 1: Jupiter is less than 3100 miles above the Earth.
Theory 2: Jupiter is more than 3100 miles above the Earth.

These theories are mutually exclusive.

Irrefutable evidence of Theory 1 disproves Theory 2.

Wrong. Simply because a theory is mutually exclusive does not mean you have disproved one over the other. You simply provided more evidence towards one. If you have irrefutable evidence, then it is not a theory any more and therefore you are not using a theory to disprove another theory.

No one claimed that because a theory is mutually exclusive does not mean you have disproved one over the other. Please do pay attention.

No one claimed to use a theory to disprove another theory. Please do pay attention.

Evidence can and indeed often does disprove a theory. That's Science. Deal with it.

... you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 11, 2012, 08:09:42 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 11, 2012, 08:05:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 11, 2012, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: chrondog on April 11, 2012, 07:38:19 PM

I have a thread that I think does a pretty good job at disproving UA here.

Here are the experiments that are used to disprove UA.

1. The Cavendish Experiment

- A counter argument of The Cavendish Experiment here

2. Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity

3. On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation

4. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos Page 41

5.
GOING DEEP: A SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR DETECTING 
DEEPLY BURIED FACILITIES FROM SPACE Chapter 4

I think you don't understand how a proof might work. Providing evidence for one theory does not disprove the other.

Wrong. When two theories are mutually exclusive, such as RET with any FET, providing evidence for one can indeed disprove the other.

For example:
Theory 1: Jupiter is less than 3100 miles above the Earth.
Theory 2: Jupiter is more than 3100 miles above the Earth.

These theories are mutually exclusive.

Irrefutable evidence of Theory 1 disproves Theory 2.

Wrong. Simply because a theory is mutually exclusive does not mean you have disproved one over the other. You simply provided more evidence towards one. If you have irrefutable evidence, then it is not a theory any more and therefore you are not using a theory to disprove another theory.

No one claimed that because a theory is mutually exclusive does not mean you have disproved one over the other. Please do pay attention.

No one claimed to use a theory to disprove another theory. Please do pay attention.

Evidence can and indeed often does disprove a theory. That's Science. Deal with it.

Quote from: Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time

... you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory

Ah, the classic ClockTower pedantry backpedal. The only way you could make this loss more obvious is if you just came out and said it.

Quote from: squevil on April 11, 2012, 07:46:19 PM

scavs fails to realise that most people believe in good science and DO take the word of others. the experiments have been done and the papers have been published. there is no need to do it again.
if we didnt move forward like that then we would all be inventing the wheel every week

This post is random, non-nonsensical, and verging on low content. If you can think of something relevant to the discussion, please feel free to post again.

its directly relative to your stupid posts. dont meberate me. the only comment that was low content was your own. failing to understand my point without quoting a post of yours is not my problem.
im raising the point that if you just ignore other peoples data and only ever use your own then you will get nowhere fast. you need others to help you in order to progress. you see your asking for people to varify gravity all over the world yet it has been done. there is no need to do it again. your on the border of calling all the scientists who do such experiments either part of the conspiracy or that they are wrong 

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 11, 2012, 08:03:16 PM

Quote from: squevil on April 11, 2012, 07:46:19 PM

scavs fails to realise that most people believe in good science and DO take the word of others. the experiments have been done and the papers have been published. there is no need to do it again.
if we didnt move forward like that then we would all be inventing the wheel every week

This post is random, non-nonsensical, and verging on low content. If you can think of something relevant to the discussion, please feel free to post again.

its directly relative to your stupid posts. dont meberate me. the only comment that was low content was your own. failing to understand my point without quoting a post of yours is not my problem.
im raising the point that if you just ignore other peoples data and only ever use your own then you will get nowhere fast. you need others to help you in order to progress. you see your asking for people to varify gravity all over the world yet it has been done. there is no need to do it again. your on the border of calling all the scientists who do such experiments either part of the conspiracy or that they are wrong 

Again, please stop posting unless you can manage to make a relevant point. I click on a thread expecting a post trying to present an argument. Otherwise, I'm going to start seeing "new post by squevil" and just ignore it because I know it will be an irrelevant post that just whines on and on.

Quote from: squevil on April 12, 2012, 09:05:49 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 11, 2012, 08:03:16 PM

Quote from: squevil on April 11, 2012, 07:46:19 PM

scavs fails to realise that most people believe in good science and DO take the word of others. the experiments have been done and the papers have been published. there is no need to do it again.
if we didnt move forward like that then we would all be inventing the wheel every week

This post is random, non-nonsensical, and verging on low content. If you can think of something relevant to the discussion, please feel free to post again.

its directly relative to your stupid posts. dont meberate me. the only comment that was low content was your own. failing to understand my point without quoting a post of yours is not my problem.
im raising the point that if you just ignore other peoples data and only ever use your own then you will get nowhere fast. you need others to help you in order to progress. you see your asking for people to varify gravity all over the world yet it has been done. there is no need to do it again. your on the border of calling all the scientists who do such experiments either part of the conspiracy or that they are wrong 

Again, please stop posting unless you can manage to make a relevant point. I click on a thread expecting a post trying to present an argument. Otherwise, I'm going to start seeing "new post by squevil" and just ignore it because I know it will be an irrelevant post that just whines on and on.

Since you seemed to have missed it, I highlight sequell's relevant point above. Please do try harder.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 12, 2012, 09:39:07 AM

Quote from: squevil on April 12, 2012, 09:05:49 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 11, 2012, 08:03:16 PM

Quote from: squevil on April 11, 2012, 07:46:19 PM

scavs fails to realise that most people believe in good science and DO take the word of others. the experiments have been done and the papers have been published. there is no need to do it again.
if we didnt move forward like that then we would all be inventing the wheel every week

This post is random, non-nonsensical, and verging on low content. If you can think of something relevant to the discussion, please feel free to post again.

its directly relative to your stupid posts. dont meberate me. the only comment that was low content was your own. failing to understand my point without quoting a post of yours is not my problem.
im raising the point that if you just ignore other peoples data and only ever use your own then you will get nowhere fast. you need others to help you in order to progress. you see your asking for people to varify gravity all over the world yet it has been done. there is no need to do it again. your on the border of calling all the scientists who do such experiments either part of the conspiracy or that they are wrong 

Again, please stop posting unless you can manage to make a relevant point. I click on a thread expecting a post trying to present an argument. Otherwise, I'm going to start seeing "new post by squevil" and just ignore it because I know it will be an irrelevant post that just whines on and on.

Since you seemed to have missed it, I highlight sequell's relevant point above. Please do try harder.

Joining the brigade, hmm? You've hit a new low. Let me know when you have a real argument or know what you're talking about, for that matter.

all i hear is lalalalalala from you.
the point im making is on topic and relevent. your trying to say that because other scientists have done the leg work then the data is useless. YOU ARE WRONG. this is the very subject that puts the fes down with the bottom feeders.
you are just dismissing another persons work because it doesnt suit your ideas. the fact is; scientists have studied 'gravity' or for arguements sake a force that appears to pull objects to the floor and thier conclusions state that it varies in different parts of the world. you threw this out of the window by asking people to do it themselves. but there is no need as they have done the work and the data is valid.
call me whiney or whatever you want, im still right whether you like it or not