dual earth prediction verified

otherwise the entire universe would be used up.

What? Law of conservation of matter, remember?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 30, 2015, 01:11:04 PM

otherwise the entire universe would be used up.

What? Law of conservation of matter, remember?

yes, and when the entire universe is converted to energy, let me know. pay attention instead of going for the first knee-jerk response you can think of, no matter how meaningless.

Quote from: kman on May 30, 2015, 01:16:58 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 30, 2015, 01:11:04 PM

otherwise the entire universe would be used up.

What? Law of conservation of matter, remember?

yes, and when the entire universe is converted to energy, let me know. pay attention instead of going for the first knee-jerk response you can think of, no matter how meaningless.

The same processes that convert matter into energy can easily convert energy back into matter.

I thought low content posting was forbidden in this part of the forum ? If so, you may delete all Jrowe's post.

JRowe, I think your first problem is that you don't understand the sense of the words. "prediction verified" -> it's not a prediction. "already shown" -> you didn't show anything, you made a (wrong) claim. Now you're going on gravity, and I already know that you will faceplant miserably because you have have the level of a 6th grader in physics. A simple proof would be your post about clouds not existing, that shows several lack in understanding very basic principles.

gravity is a force. there is not a limited amount of it, it is not tangible, there is no reason for a drop in intensity.

Well there's your problem. Inverse square law does not only apply to intensity.

Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena.

The same processes that convert matter into energy can easily convert energy back into matter.
JRowe, I think your first problem is that you don't understand the sense of the words. "prediction verified" -> it's not a prediction. "already shown" -> you didn't show anything, you made a (wrong) claim. Now you're going on gravity, and I already know that you will faceplant miserably because you have have the level of a 6th grader in physics.
irrelevant.

Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law
I AM ASKING YOU TO JUSTIFY THIS ASSERTION. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE BEFORE YOU ANSWER A QUESTION YOU HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY ASKED?!
gravity is a force, not a tangible object: it isn't going to spread out, there's not gravity particles that are struggling to cover an area.

Inverse square law does not only apply to intensity.
how does it not? if intensity does not vary, there is no reason for any kind of reduction, much less an inverse square.

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.

Also, sense the Earth has different densities at different places gravity is expected to change a bit.

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.

as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".
it was seeing that soemthing i did not know happens matches perfectly with the dual earth model, actually. the model is perfectly able to make predictions, try to learn for once.

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.
as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

No, you have asserted that the inverse square law doesn't apply to gravity.  You have yet to demonstrate anything in your drivel.

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".
it was seeing that soemthing i did not know happens matches perfectly with the dual earth model, actually. the model is perfectly able to make predictions, try to learn for once.

No, you saw something, then shoehorned aether to be the cause of what you saw.  That is not making predictions.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:18:31 AM

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.
as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

No, you have asserted that the inverse square law doesn't apply to gravity.  You have yet to demonstrate anything in your drivel.

Quote

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".
it was seeing that soemthing i did not know happens matches perfectly with the dual earth model, actually. the model is perfectly able to make predictions, try to learn for once.

No, you saw something, then shoehorned aether to be the cause of what you saw.  That is not making predictions.

gravity is a force, not a tangible object: it isn't going to spread out, there's not gravity particles that are struggling to cover an area.
learn to read you pathetic moron.

i did not shoehorn at all. i have always been saying that the effects of aether will be discontinuous: and have said that what you call gravity is an effect of aether. i had been saying this for ages before i made this observation.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:21:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:18:31 AM

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.
as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

No, you have asserted that the inverse square law doesn't apply to gravity.  You have yet to demonstrate anything in your drivel.

Quote

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".
it was seeing that soemthing i did not know happens matches perfectly with the dual earth model, actually. the model is perfectly able to make predictions, try to learn for once.

No, you saw something, then shoehorned aether to be the cause of what you saw.  That is not making predictions.

gravity is a force, not a tangible object: it isn't going to spread out, there's not gravity particles that are struggling to cover an area.
learn to read you pathetic moron.

Is this really the only argument you can make?  You have nothing more than assertion that you are right and the whole of scientific discovery is wrong.  Yet I am the one not reading?  You have not demonstrated anything, you have asserted everything.  Not my problem.

i did not shoehorn at all. i have always been saying that the effects of aether will be discontinuous: and have said that what you call gravity is an effect of aether. i had been saying this for ages before i made this observation.

Going and attributing everything to aether is shoehorning.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/162-shoehorning

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:21:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:18:31 AM

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.
as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

No, you have asserted that the inverse square law doesn't apply to gravity.  You have yet to demonstrate anything in your drivel.

Quote

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".
it was seeing that soemthing i did not know happens matches perfectly with the dual earth model, actually. the model is perfectly able to make predictions, try to learn for once.

No, you saw something, then shoehorned aether to be the cause of what you saw.  That is not making predictions.

gravity is a force, not a tangible object: it isn't going to spread out, there's not gravity particles that are struggling to cover an area.
learn to read you pathetic moron.

i did not shoehorn at all. i have always been saying that the effects of aether will be discontinuous: and have said that what you call gravity is an effect of aether. i had been saying this for ages before i made this observation.

How many times do I have to tell you current theory is gravity isn't a force? If gravity was a force falling would feel like riding in a sports car.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:21:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:18:31 AM

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.
as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

No, you have asserted that the inverse square law doesn't apply to gravity.  You have yet to demonstrate anything in your drivel.

Quote

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".
it was seeing that soemthing i did not know happens matches perfectly with the dual earth model, actually. the model is perfectly able to make predictions, try to learn for once.

No, you saw something, then shoehorned aether to be the cause of what you saw.  That is not making predictions.

gravity is a force, not a tangible object: it isn't going to spread out, there's not gravity particles that are struggling to cover an area.
learn to read you pathetic moron.

i did not shoehorn at all. i have always been saying that the effects of aether will be discontinuous: and have said that what you call gravity is an effect of aether. i had been saying this for ages before i made this observation.

That's not a demonstration, that's an assertion. So yes, you still didn't demonstrate that the inverse square law doesn't apply to gravity. As long as you can't prove that, this topic is a dead-end, and another fail for your wrong model.

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.

as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

When you double the dimensions of an object it's surface area becomes 4 times greater.  Gravity propagates outward similar to light, and of it has to occupy 4 times as much space then it's 1/4 as concentrated when you double the distance, which is what the inverse square law.

That wasn't a prediction, it was just pointing out something which happens and shouting "aether".
it was seeing that soemthing i did not know happens matches perfectly with the dual earth model, actually. the model is perfectly able to make predictions, try to learn for once.

Aether predicts that these anomalies would be stronger higher up while gravity predicts that these anomalies are stronger closer to the ground.  In reality we observe that they are stronger closer to the ground.

Gravity follows the inverse square law.  This has been proven both experimentally and mathematically.
and i have demonstrated that, as you define gravity, it should not. pay attention: if this is what you observe, then i have shown your model must be false.

as for mathematically, bearing in mind what i have shown, would you care to make that more than an assertion?

Do I really need to spell it out for you?

Everybody else: "Gravity follows the inverse-square law. This has been proven experimentally and mathematically."

JRowe: "Gravity does not follow it."

Everybody else: "Yes it does."

JRowe: "PROVE IT YOU IDIOTIC MORON, LOOK AT MY CAPS LOCK IDIOT."

Do your own research: http://geofaculty.uwyo.edu/dueker/GeophysicsClass/Newton%20derivation%20gravity.ppt

You have nothing more than assertion that you are right and the whole of scientific discovery is wrong.
That's not a demonstration, that's an assertion.
apparently you cannot tell the difference between reasoning and assertion. i suggest you read, and try to actually say why what i have offered is not an explanation. what, then, do you think is the cause for the inverse square law if it has nothing to do with the disperal of the force/object/energy?

Gravity propagates outward similar to light, and of it has to occupy 4 times as much space then it's 1/4 as concentrated when you double the distance,
why would it propagate similarly to light? that makes no sense, gravity isn't a wave. according to scientists it's the bending of space: how would that become less concentrated?

Aether predicts that these anomalies would be stronger higher up while gravity predicts that these anomalies are stronger closer to the ground.
well that's utterly false. read about the model before you blatantly lie like that. closer to the ground, there is the combined downwards force of multiple whirlpools acting on you: the higher you go, the less whirlpools push down, the less force there is. as the higher up whirlpools are far stronger, the lower ones are not a major part of gravity: so while they do contribute, their strength is orders of magnitude less than the higher. the higher you go, the stronger the whirlpool, the quicker the reduction.

Gravity propagates outward similar to light, and of it has to occupy 4 times as much space then it's 1/4 as concentrated when you double the distance,
why would it propagate similarly to light? that makes no sense, gravity isn't a wave. according to scientists it's the bending of space: how would that become less concentrated?

Sense gravity follows the inverse square law it means that at any given distance from an object the combined gravitational field strength from all points at that distance is the same.  This makes so much sense.  You are implying that the combined gravitational field strength of all points at a given distance should increase as distance increases.  That doesn't make any sense at all and you haven't even given your reasons for believing it.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 01, 2015, 06:37:46 AM

Gravity propagates outward similar to light, and of it has to occupy 4 times as much space then it's 1/4 as concentrated when you double the distance,
why would it propagate similarly to light? that makes no sense, gravity isn't a wave. according to scientists it's the bending of space: how would that become less concentrated?

Sense gravity follows the inverse square law it means that at any given distance from an object the combined gravitational field strength from all points at that distance is the same.  This makes so much sense.  You are implying that the combined gravitational field strength of all points at a given distance should increase as distance increases.  That doesn't make any sense at all and you haven't even given your reasons for believing it.

do you understand what a circular argument is?
when you're actually going to address my points, come back.

also, "You are implying that the combined gravitational field strength of all points at a given distance should increase as distance increases," you were just explicitly corrected on this. do you enjoy outright lying?

What about gravitational variances throughout the world? Let me guess all magic aether that can expert a force that for some reason can't be felt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

What about gravitational variances throughout the world? Let me guess all magic aether that can expert a force that for some reason can't be felt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

there is a diagram in the 'dual earth theory' thread in the ifnormation repository. it is just a couple of paragraphs. read that, come back when you actually understand the model, and then maybe you will have something to add.
no part of dual earth theory predicts completely equal downwards force all over the world. whirlpools are focused at the equator, for example: so the downwards force resulting from them will primarily be focused there.

Quote from: sokarul on June 01, 2015, 02:49:38 PM

What about gravitational variances throughout the world? Let me guess all magic aether that can expert a force that for some reason can't be felt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

there is a diagram in the 'dual earth theory' thread in the ifnormation repository. it is just a couple of paragraphs. read that, come back when you actually understand the model, and then maybe you will have something to add.
no part of dual earth theory predicts completely equal downwards force all over the world. whirlpools are focused at the equator, for example: so the downwards force resulting from them will primarily be focused there.

Why can't aether be felt?

I would like to put forth an example that demonstrates the ideas being discussed, and conveniently it relates directly to gravity. For two centuries Newton's theory of gravity, his inverse square law, accurately described what was observed. It was a highly successful model. However with better astronomical equipment it was discovered that the orbit of Mercury has a precession and Newton's theory of gravity could not account for this.

Einstein in 1915 presented his theory of gravity, General Relativity. This theory accurately accounted for the precession of Mercury. In addition the theory predicted gravitational lensing, the phenomena by which a massive object bends the path of light so that objects behind the object can be viewed. This prediction was confirmed first confirmed with the 1919 solar eclipse and also with subsequent observations and experiments.

General Relativity was therefore able to explain an a observation that the preceeding theory could not, and then made a prediction that has been confirmed. I hope this example helps to make things clearer for you Jrowe. Both Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity are mathematical models. A scientific model or theory need not be, per se, but in physics mathematics is the language of physics. As such I would like to see your mathematical model Jrowe.

also, "You are implying that the combined gravitational field strength of all points at a given distance should increase as distance increases," you were just explicitly corrected on this. do you enjoy outright lying?

If gravity dropped off linearly then that would be what would happen.  You clearly don't understand basic math, which it probobaly why you haven't produced any aether equasions yet.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 28, 2015, 05:38:32 AM

Thats not really a prediction.  That is more explaining an observation.  Also, you've heard of the inverse square law right?

the inverse square law is only relevant to quantities of which there is a tangible and so limited amount. gravity is a force.

Says who?

Why can't aether be felt?
it can be, moron. drop a book on your foot. the fact we've grown used to the constant downwards force doesn't mean it's not there. think, seriously.

If gravity dropped off linearly then that would be what would happen.
well given hat no one is proposing our observed gravity drops off linearly, i have no idea why you thought it was relevant. do you even have a brain?

  You clearly don't understand basic math, which it probobaly why you haven't produced any aether equasions yet.
that answers it, you clearly don't. apparently you think math can be plucked out of the empty air, rather than relying on gaining observations and evdience and performing detailed examination in order to determine behavior. and apparently you also can't deal with the fact i have responded to your bullshit every fucking time you've spewed it over a thread, as if the fact i don't have millions of dollars worth of equipment makes the logic behind my theory meaningless. you are a moron, just deal with that fact and move on. your bullshit has been shown to be meaningless. fact. you repeating it just shows you're interested in acting smug, and not thinking.
you're the one who apaprently struggles with understanding math.
but ok, put your money where your mouth is, how can equations be derived without further observation with equipment that i do not, and that likely no layperson, has? i'm waiting.
either answer this is a meaningful way, or shut the fuck up because you'll have conceded that your insistence is an impossible ask for anyone in the real world. just grow up you pathetic cretin.

Says who?
well that's the justification for it everywhere i've looked it up.

yet again, i am directly asking the question that everyone has ignored. if you can't answer this, why the hell are you still defending your bs model? if you can, why the hell has it taken you so long? i have been asking this since my first post.

WHY DOES THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW APPLY TO GRAVITY?

gravity is not tangible, there is no finite amount dissipating: it's a force. why does the inverse square law apply?

try to actually respod for once, i am sick of your evasion.

Why do falling objects not feel the same thing as accelerating in a sports car? Think about it. The book doesn't feel anything while falling.

Why do falling objects not feel the same thing as accelerating in a sports car? Think about it. The book doesn't feel anything while falling.

because we're used to the downwards force. are you still struggling with that?
einstein's equivalence principle.

Quote from: sokarul on June 02, 2015, 06:17:27 AM

Why do falling objects not feel the same thing as accelerating in a sports car? Think about it. The book doesn't feel anything while falling.

because we're used to the downwards force. are you still struggling with that?
einstein's equivalence principle.

We are used to down forces? So if I fall upside down I can feel it?

The real reason is gravity isn't a force. See the equivalence principle. Game over.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 02, 2015, 06:21:14 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 02, 2015, 06:17:27 AM

Why do falling objects not feel the same thing as accelerating in a sports car? Think about it. The book doesn't feel anything while falling.

because we're used to the downwards force. are you still struggling with that?
einstein's equivalence principle.

We are used to down forces? So if I fall upside down I can feel it?

The real reason is gravity isn't a force. See the equivalence principle. Game over.

what the hell are you talking about? we've grown accustomed to gravity. we have not grown accustomed to racing along at who knows how fast. there's no comparison.
yes, if you fall, you can feel the downwards force, whether you're right side up or whatever. we don't feel gravity as some special force because we have no understanding of a world without it. we do feel gravity every second, but it's just what we assume is the default state. are you really still struggling with this extremely basic principle?

if gravity isn't a force, what is it?
please also say how you calculate it.

Just checking in to see if JRowe has provided anything besides assertions to disprove centuries of observation and experimentation.
No?
Alright cool see ya guys later.