Shifting Gears and the Bipolar Model

If you don't know an answer, just say so.  Your theory makes up all kinds of crap to explain away why it should not, but does work.  If it does not work, then come up with a new theory that is based on reality.  Don't just say, "fairies and magic and black stuff you can't see did it."

We know the answer up to solar system scale. Do you even have one for the surface of the earth?

If you don't know an answer, just say so.  Your theory makes up all kinds of crap to explain away why it should not, but does work.  If it does not work, then come up with a new theory that is based on reality.  Don't just say, "fairies and magic and black stuff you can't see did it."

What are you talking about?

The theory doesn't imply that we even know what it is.

Before I accept that Flatters don't have a theory that explains gravitation, I shall ask them first. So, to you FEers, how is the affect of gravitation explained? Please tell me about the Aetheric Wind and UA. How do they work? And what, if any connection does the upward acceleration of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared have to do with Terminal Velocity, which is also 9.8 meters per second squared? Granted, the latter is explained  through Newtonian gravity, but is there any connection between the two? And Rounders, I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you have Newtonian physics, or Einsteinian physics. I don't see how two different theories of gravitation can BOTH be correct. If they can be, please explain.

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 08:44:40 AM

If you don't know an answer, just say so.  Your theory makes up all kinds of crap to explain away why it should not, but does work.  If it does not work, then come up with a new theory that is based on reality.  Don't just say, "fairies and magic and black stuff you can't see did it."

We know the answer up to solar system scale. Do you even have one for the surface of the earth?

Yes, we do.  UA provides us with this force, and it accelerates us at 9.8 m/s/s. 

Before I accept that Flatters don't have a theory that explains gravitation, I shall ask them first. So, to you FEers, how is the affect of gravitation explained? Please tell me about the Aetheric Wind and UA. How do they work? And what, if any connection does the upward acceleration of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared have to do with Terminal Velocity, which is also 9.8 meters per second squared? Granted, the latter is explained  through Newtonian gravity, but is there any connection between the two? And Rounders, I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you have Newtonian physics, or Einsteinian physics. I don't see how two different theories of gravitation can BOTH be correct. If they can be, please explain.

Terminal velocity is not what you seem to think it means. 

Before I accept that Flatters don't have a theory that explains gravitation, I shall ask them first. So, to you FEers, how is the affect of gravitation explained? Please tell me about the Aetheric Wind and UA. How do they work? And what, if any connection does the upward acceleration of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared have to do with Terminal Velocity, which is also 9.8 meters per second squared? Granted, the latter is explained  through Newtonian gravity, but is there any connection between the two? And Rounders, I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you have Newtonian physics, or Einsteinian physics. I don't see how two different theories of gravitation can BOTH be correct. If they can be, please explain.

I just explained it to you. In our inertial reference frame, Newtonian gravity is fine. In that reference frame it is not necessary to consider the aspects defined by Einstein in relativity.

Yes, we do.  UA provides us with this force, and it accelerates us at 9.8 m/s/s.

Then explain why we observe that the gravity or UA in your case is not uniformly 9.9 m/sē everywhere on the earth. It is 9.78 m/sē (minimum) at the equator and 9.83 m/sē at the poles (maximum). See the travelling gnome experiment (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979)

You know what would happen to the flat earth if it is not accelerated at the same value? The pole would have left the equator behind since long ago

I doubt that is true.  The discrepancies are likely do to either the moon or other celestial objects having an affect on the local force. 

I doubt that is true.  The discrepancies are likely do to either the moon or other celestial objects having an affect on the local force.

Caused by gravity? Newtonian one? Or something else? Please post evidence.

I doubt that is true.  The discrepancies are likely do to either the moon or other celestial objects having an affect on the local force.

Take notice Yaakov ben Avraham. FE often invokes gravity to explain things that can't be explained. I coined this term "selective gravity".

So is there gravity or not? And if so, where? If the Earth has UA, what do the other bodies have? Does the Sun have gravity? What about the Moon? The other planets? I am not sure that Flatters can have it both ways either. Either there is gravity, or there is not, I would think. Do explain.

I did not say "Gravity", you disingenuous little gits.  I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.

I did not say "Gravity", you disingenuous little gits.  I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.

Hey, it's not like I've never heard a flat earth say "celestial gravity".

I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.

What is this unknown force jroa? Do you need the equivalent of dark matter to explain what's going on even on Earth?

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:23:18 AM

I did not say "Gravity", you disingenuous little gits.  I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.

Hey, it's not like I've never heard a flat earth say "celestial gravity".

Fair enough.  Let's not argue about what this energy is.  Some may  claim celestial gravity, some claim magnetism, and some say they are not sure.  However, all we know is that the Heavens likely affect the Earth as we know it. 

Well, lets make sure that what we say JRoa said, he actually DID say. It is unfair to him (or her, gender uncertain) to accuse him/her of saying things that he/she did not say. So, to be clear, what is gravity according to Rounders? Do we have proof of it? According to Flatters, what is UA? What is Aetheric Wind? do we have proof of either?

Well, lets make sure that what we say JRoa said, he actually DID say. It is unfair to him (or her, gender uncertain) to accuse him/her of saying things that he/she did not say. So, to be clear, what is gravity according to Rounders? Do we have proof of it? According to Flatters, what is UA? What is Aetheric Wind? do we have proof of either?

According to rounders gravity is simply defined as "the apparent attraction of objects toward each other". The mechanism by which this works is not completely known but Einstein did provide a satisfying theory that has to do with mass causing spacetime to curve.

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:23:18 AM

I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.

What is this unknown force jroa? Do you need the equivalent of dark matter to explain what's going on even on Earth?

Please explain to me the exact way a Higgs Boson field works.  It could not possibly be real if you can not explain every little detail.  If you can not explain that, then your whole theory just goes to shit, no does it not?

I am saying this in a rhetorical way.  I don't give a shit for you to copy and past wikipedia crap here.  I am just proving a point.

Fair enough.  Let's not argue about what this energy is.  Some may  claim celestial gravity, some claim magnetism, and some say they are not sure.  However, all we know is that the Heavens likely affect the Earth as we know it. 

This is exactly what OP meant when he said:

3: The many and diverse ideas of what a FE looks like are a weakness rather than a strength.
4: FEers, in order to be taken seriously, must develop a thesis that all of them can accept.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 09:28:31 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:23:18 AM

I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.

What is this unknown force jroa? Do you need the equivalent of dark matter to explain what's going on even on Earth?

Please explain to me the exact way a Higgs Boson field works.  It could not possibly be real if you can not explain every little detail.  If you can not explain that, then your whole theory just goes to shit, no does it not?

I am saying this in a rhetorical way.  I don't give a shit for you to copy and past wikipedia crap here.  I am just proving a point.

Not until at least you have a unified theory that is working on the surface of the earth as good as Newtonian gravity on RE model.

It seems to me that both Rounders and Flatters have some trouble with being Zetetic. According to Rowbotham, the goal of Zeteticism was to only accept beliefs that could be verified by experiments. He argued that theoreticals were just that, theoreticals, and had no value for actual belief. And yet, in his book ENaG, he posits a lot of ideas based on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. That, at least to me, is NOT being Zetetic. As a Traditional Jew, I do not accept the New Testament as having any value in terms of religious truth, though I shall accept it for its historical value. But Rowbotham's attempt to explain everything he could not explain by experiments by using the Christian Bible seems to me to be a copout.

Rounders, on the other hand, seem to have just as much trouble. When they do experiments, they get results that they do not understand, so they create theories that explain the experiments. For example, the traditional apple falling from the tree which Newton observed, he could not understand. So he said it was gravity. Is there any proof that gravity exists? It seems to me that there is as much proof for gravity as there is for UA and the Aetheric Wind, namely, very little. Furthermore, it seems to me that attempting to categorically prove either idea is bound to fail, at least in the literal sense. It further seems that Rounders and Flatters are both rather "stuck" in their own framework of reference, and thus have a hard time getting out of that in order to see the other framework of reference employed by the other side.

This post is not designed to poke fun at either Rounders or Flatters. Rather, it is intended to make clear that both sides use theories that cannot be proven empirically. I think its only fair to say that, given that both sides accuse the other of using off-the-wall ideas that are unprovable. I don't know if you all get the hang of what I'm saying. I seem to be saying it rather badly, so I'll just shut up now. Any thoughts on what I just wrote?

PS. What does OP mean?

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:33:54 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 09:28:31 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:23:18 AM

I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.

What is this unknown force jroa? Do you need the equivalent of dark matter to explain what's going on even on Earth?

Please explain to me the exact way a Higgs Boson field works.  It could not possibly be real if you can not explain every little detail.  If you can not explain that, then your whole theory just goes to shit, no does it not?

I am saying this in a rhetorical way.  I don't give a shit for you to copy and past wikipedia crap here.  I am just proving a point.

Not until at least you have a unified theory that is working on the surface of the earth as good as Newtonian gravity on RE model.

Does RE have a unified theory yet?  I never said that Newtonian Calculations do not work, at least not here on Earth.

We have Newtonian gravity that works fine not only on Earth but up to the scale of our solar system.

We have Newtonian gravity that works fine not only on Earth but up to the scale of our solar system.

Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far.  It is the Three Bears story of science.  It only works when it is just right.

Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far.  It is the Three Bears story of science.  It only works when it is just right.

What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?

It seems to me that both Rounders and Flatters have some trouble with being Zetetic. According to Rowbotham, the goal of Zeteticism was to only accept beliefs that could be verified by experiments. He argued that theoreticals were just that, theoreticals, and had no value for actual belief. And yet, in his book ENaG, he posits a lot of ideas based on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. That, at least to me, is NOT being Zetetic. As a Traditional Jew, I do not accept the New Testament as having any value in terms of religious truth, though I shall accept it for its historical value. But Rowbotham's attempt to explain everything he could not explain by experiments by using the Christian Bible seems to me to be a copout.

Rounders, on the other hand, seem to have just as much trouble. When they do experiments, they get results that they do not understand, so they create theories that explain the experiments. For example, the traditional apple falling from the tree which Newton observed, he could not understand. So he said it was gravity. Is there any proof that gravity exists? It seems to me that there is as much proof for gravity as there is for UA and the Aetheric Wind, namely, very little. Furthermore, it seems to me that attempting to categorically prove either idea is bound to fail, at least in the literal sense. It further seems that Rounders and Flatters are both rather "stuck" in their own framework of reference, and thus have a hard time getting out of that in order to see the other framework of reference employed by the other side.

This post is not designed to poke fun at either Rounders or Flatters. Rather, it is intended to make clear that both sides use theories that cannot be proven empirically. I think its only fair to say that, given that both sides accuse the other of using off-the-wall ideas that are unprovable. I don't know if you all get the hang of what I'm saying. I seem to be saying it rather badly, so I'll just shut up now. Any thoughts on what I just wrote?

PS. What does OP mean?

Gravity isn't defined as being anymore than an observation. I'm not sure why you are insisting that it isn't real because there is no explanation (mind you, Einstein DID provide an explanation). It is obviously real because it happens. Things fall. You are falling into the same trap many FE'rs do by insisting there isn't an explanation by saying that Newtonian gravity is the accepted model.

Your comments about reference frame are odd. A reference frame is a real thing. It's not a hypothetical way to talk about world views.

We can have it both ways with gravity (Newton and Einstein) and I have shown you why. In the inertial reference frame of our solar system, it works the way Newton suggested, but then it breaks apart at a galactic scale. Einstein provided a way that works in both systems but the reason why we still invoke Newton despite Einstein's superior work is because it works here and most of all it's SIMPLE, unlike relativity.

I feel like I've typed this already.

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:57:01 AM

Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far.  It is the Three Bears story of science.  It only works when it is just right.

What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?

Uh, everything move at the same speed?  Yes, that would be my answer. 

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 10:01:00 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:57:01 AM

Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far.  It is the Three Bears story of science.  It only works when it is just right.

What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?

Uh, everything move at the same speed?  Yes, that would be my answer.

Galactical scale? I said what example can you give for the scale of our solar system?

Well, if Einstein was able to give an account that worked in BOTH systems, then  it seems silly to invoke Newton. I would think that he would be passe, once Einstein had spoken, if indeed Einstein's theory is superior. It may be hard to explain, but if it can account for all observed phenomena both local and galactic, it seems that it would be worth explaining. Does that make sense? And WHAT does OP mean?

Einstein was a smart man.  He was just wrong about the shape of the Earth.