Clouds and UA

So with UA, how exactly do clouds stay up for observable periods?

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

If everything in the universe accelerated equally, truly nothing would be accelerating at all. We would all float away endlessly. Thus, we are given to the fact that everything on the earth is not universally accelerated. Only the lower earth and the celestial bodies receive the force directly. All other bodies on earth are then given the acceleration by, for example, the ground, or air. This leads us to some strange phenomenon, such as atmolayer thinning and clouds. Both of these events are actually due to Celestial Gravitation.

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".



You used to at least make some sense.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:46:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:46:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.

That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:46:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.

That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.

I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.

Google turns up nothing because they're gibberish.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 10:00:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:46:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.

That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.

I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.

When Google can't find a term that you've used, I don't give up at all. Instead I turn to you to define it.

When you don't define a term rarely seen in all of the Internet, you're just talking gibberish.

Oh, and you still have my challenge to show how you know that visiting any two places will result in one uniform field mean. Have you visited every place? I think not.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 10:37:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 10:00:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:46:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.

That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.

I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.

When Google can't find a term that you've used, I don't give up at all. Instead I turn to you to define it.

When you don't define a term rarely seen in all of the Internet, you're just talking gibberish.

Oh, and you still have my challenge to show how you know that visiting any two places will result in one uniform field mean. Have you visited every place? I think not.

I never claimed that I have, nor did I claim that the uniform field mean requires such an event. The uniform field mean only requires two places to be visited.

Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.

Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.

Have you performed such a task yourself?

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PM

Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.

Have you performed such a task yourself?

Not at the equator, but I have measured gravity in two different places in the northern hemisphere using a pendulum.

Oh, and have you tried it to see if the mean is always the same?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 11:09:58 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PM

Um, you can visit two places at the equator, measure the gravity, and average them, and that average won't be the same as the average for two places farther north or south.

Have you performed such a task yourself?

Not at the equator, but I have measured gravity in two different places in the northern hemisphere using a pendulum.

Oh, and have you tried it to see if the mean is always the same?

Always? No. I have measured it in plenty of places though.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 10:47:14 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 10:37:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 10:00:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:46:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:37:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 09:33:39 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 09:06:36 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

Have you been to every point on the Earth's surface and concluded that it wasn't uniform? I think not.

Nor did I claim to have. Please stop with these fallacies. Oh, and one needs to visit only two places, not all of them, to know that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. lrn2reason.

In the relativity of the gravitational field, you'll find that visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean. This would result in you having to visit more and more places until you've visited the whole planet and having gotten no where. You don't have to claim you have done something for it to be necessary for you to have done it in order to make the original claim.

Nope. It's just rubbish to say that "visiting any two places will result in a uniform field mean".  Even before challenging you to support your outlandish claim, you'd have to deal with the nonsense of the term "uniform field mean".

You used to at least make some sense.

Please do get back to me when you can think of a real response.

That was. Again, define your term "uniform field mean" and show how you know that visiting any two place will result in one.

I have no need to define my terms. You have already showed that when google fails you, you pretty much give up.

When Google can't find a term that you've used, I don't give up at all. Instead I turn to you to define it.

When you don't define a term rarely seen in all of the Internet, you're just talking gibberish.

Oh, and you still have my challenge to show how you know that visiting any two places will result in one uniform field mean. Have you visited every place? I think not.

I never claimed that I have, nor did I claim that the uniform field mean requires such an event. The uniform field mean only requires two places to be visited.

Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)

Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)

Nope. I said "you will find..." well, did you find? Did you even try? I assume you did not. I certainly didn't claim that I knew anything.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 11:26:22 PM

Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)

Nope. I said "you will find..." well, did you find? Did you even try? I assume you did not. I certainly didn't claim that I knew anything.

Just to assist you with English and Science... When you make a claim that something will happen, you're making a claim that you know something.

What counts as a different place?

If I go ten feet from here, the gravity is going to measure the same, and the average will just be the gravity measurement I already took for the first spot.

For the average to always be the same no matter what two places you go, the gravity field must be uniform.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 10, 2012, 11:30:28 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 10, 2012, 11:26:22 PM

Yes, you claimed that you know that any two places would have the same uniform field mean, whatever that "means". How could you know that without visiting every place? (I don't believe in this stupid concept that unless I measure and event at every location at every instance in time that I don't "know" that the event can be generalized. I'm just requiring you to meet your standards.)

Nope. I said "you will find..." well, did you find? Did you even try? I assume you did not. I certainly didn't claim that I knew anything.

Just to assist you with English and Science... When you make a claim that something will happen, you're making a claim that you know something.

Whether I know something will happen is not dependent on whether it will happen or not. I'm not sure where you have derived such crazed logic.

Lol, so this thing you know will happen might not happen.  Okay.

Lol, so this thing you know will happen might not happen.  Okay.

Yep, Rushy has real trouble with that post, doesn't he?

He claims that he can know something to be true even if it isn't. I guess we have a new candidate for the FES motto.

Whether I know something will happen is not dependent on whether it will happen or not.

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 10, 2012, 08:28:47 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

they are moving at the same speed of the earth due to the UA

Yet I have seen FETs say that it is ludicrous for the earth to rotate because the atmosphere would spin at "crazy speed".  It seems UA would have the same problem.

You should:
1) give up your line of inquiry. Einstein's EP predicts that the FE's clouds (planes, parachutes, helicopters, etc.) would appear to stay aloft and
2) ignore Rushy, as a rule, and specifically here. He doesn't understand simple physics, including that while velocity is relative, acceleration is not.

Oh, and it is very possible, even easy, to show that the UA is false since the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform. Markjo and trig make this point regularly and well.

You might make better headway in convincing people if you were not such a smarmy prat.

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 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.

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