Universal Accelerator - how it works?

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

So like 99 percent of your on topic post?

Check out any physics book if you want a source.

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 09:37:12 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

So like 99 percent of your on topic post?

Check out any physics book if you want a source.

Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from?  I want to know which ones to avoid.  lol

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 09:37:12 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

So like 99 percent of your on topic post?

Check out any physics book if you want a source.

Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from?  I want to know which ones to avoid.  lol

We all know you avoid all physics books.

Do you need me to google F=ma for you?

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:25:20 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 09:37:12 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

So like 99 percent of your on topic post?

Check out any physics book if you want a source.

Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from?  I want to know which ones to avoid.  lol

We all know you avoid all physics books.

Do you need me to google F=ma for you?

Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago.  Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books? 

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:35:05 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:25:20 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 09:37:12 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

So like 99 percent of your on topic post?

Check out any physics book if you want a source.

Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from?  I want to know which ones to avoid.  lol

We all know you avoid all physics books.

Do you need me to google F=ma for you?

Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago.  Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books?

But you said the UA was a force. Are you now saying it's not a force? Are you saying it's not valid here?

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:38:41 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:35:05 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:25:20 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 09:37:12 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

So like 99 percent of your on topic post?

Check out any physics book if you want a source.

Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from?  I want to know which ones to avoid.  lol

We all know you avoid all physics books.

Do you need me to google F=ma for you?

Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago.  Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books?

But you said the UA was a force. Are you now saying it's not a force?

Are you saying that applying a force to something does not cause it to accelerate?  You seem to be very confused about a lot of things.  I hope you get help for yourself. 

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:41:18 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:38:41 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:35:05 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:25:20 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 09:37:12 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 08:51:47 AM

No, but you seem to be having trouble understanding what a source is.  lol.

You seem to think a source is required. It is not. Now do you have an actual rebuttal or or you just going to waste my time?

You seem to think that any little thought that pops into your head is evidence of something, even when it is not supported by fact, logic, or reason.  lol

So like 99 percent of your on topic post?

Check out any physics book if you want a source.

Which physics books are you pulling your made up information from?  I want to know which ones to avoid.  lol

We all know you avoid all physics books.

Do you need me to google F=ma for you?

Newtonian physics were disproved more than 100 years ago.  Perhaps you could try to pull some of your made up information from some more modern books?

But you said the UA was a force. Are you now saying it's not a force?

Are you saying that applying a force to something does not cause it to accelerate?  You seem to be very confused about a lot of things.  I hope you get help for yourself.

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. 

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:45:46 AM

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. 

I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:49:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:45:46 AM

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. 

I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.

Universal Acceleration is an effect.  An acceleration is caused by a force.  Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect? 

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:53:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:49:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:45:46 AM

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. 

I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.

Universal Acceleration is an effect.  An acceleration is caused by a force.  Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?

What about general relativity and bent space time? It's not a force but can cause acceleration, depending on who you ask.

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:55:51 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:53:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:49:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:45:46 AM

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. 

I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.

Universal Acceleration is an effect.  An acceleration is caused by a force.  Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?

What about general relativity and bent space time? It's not a force but can cause acceleration, depending on who you ask.

Oh, I see.  You have never looked up the difference between a cause and effect.  Nice to know. 

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 11:05:24 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:55:51 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:53:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:49:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:45:46 AM

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. 

I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.

Universal Acceleration is an effect.  An acceleration is caused by a force.  Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?

What about general relativity and bent space time? It's not a force but can cause acceleration, depending on who you ask.

Oh, I see.  You have never looked up the difference between a cause and effect.  Nice to know.

Source?

Source?

Your posts. 

Which one?

All of them, pretty much. 

All of them, pretty much.

In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?

You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 11:41:22 AM

All of them, pretty much.

In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?

You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.

sokarul and his little thoughts.  I should move this to AR or CN. 

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 12:09:07 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 11:41:22 AM

All of them, pretty much.

In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?

You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.

sokarul and his little thoughts.  I should move this to AR or CN.

You think a post were I copy you should be moved to CN. Good job you.

sokarul and his little thoughts.  I should move this to AR or CN.

Translation: "Crap, I think he's right, time to move it to a place it won't be taken seriously because it won't be read"

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:53:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 10:49:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 05, 2016, 10:45:46 AM

What posts are you reading? Where did I say a force on a mass doesn't cause an acceleration?

You keep going on and on about UA not being caused by a force, socker boy. 

I didn't claim it wasn't a force, I asked if you thought it was. Perhaps read the thread again.

Universal Acceleration is an effect.  An acceleration is caused by a force.  Have you never looked up the difference between cause and effect?

6 pages and all we have come to is this? WOW...

6 pages and all we know is that the acceleration is caused by the force, but we still do not know what it accelerates, why the Moon and the Sun will not collide with the Earth etc...

Well, since you quoted me, I'll answer:

1. Acceleration rate is not constant.

The acceleration of the FE due to the UA would be a constant 9.81m/s^2.

2. There is no "outside", so how can we talk about any FOR not being accelerated?

Who said there is no "outside"?  You can take any inertial FOR and talk about that one.

3. What does UA accelerate?

Seemingly everything in contact with it.

But... why? Isn't UA supposed to accelerate EVERYTHING?

Everything in contact with it, yes.

Does the UA accelerate me sitting on my chair or it does not?

Yes.  But not directly.

If yes, then why do I stop being accelerated by the UA when I jump?

Because you are no longer being indirectly accelerated by the UA.

If no, then why does it accelerate the Earth but not me?

Because you are obviously not in direct contact with it.

Any clear and explicit explaination?

See above.


 

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2016, 11:41:22 AM

All of them, pretty much.

In all my post I claim I have never looked up cause and effect?

You seem to think any little thought that pops into your head is evidence.

Says the discount chemist that claims I stated I had proven General Relativity.  Who also can't provide a single quote of mine to provide as evidence, yet provides posts of his, as evidence of my statement.

Quote

2. There is no "outside", so how can we talk about any FOR not being accelerated?

Who said there is no "outside"?  You can take any inertial FOR and talk about that one.

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Quote

If no, then why does it accelerate the Earth but not me?

Because you are obviously not in direct contact with it.

How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?

Thanks for all remaning answers.

These are more questions that were set later. They are based on the wiki page. It shares some light on the idea why UA may not work on every object in the Universe.

Quote

Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects).

When the object is sufficiently massive?

Why only sufficiently massive objects are accelerated?

Why the effect on smaller bodies is negligible? It should be measurable after all.

If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...

Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Drop something.  Or jump.  There you go: an inertial FOR. 

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?

Simplified answer (applicable for most things on the FE and most celestial objects; this list is also FOR dependent):
1.  Is it accelerating at a minimum of 9.8m/s^2?  Yes, go to #2.  No, go to #5.
2.  Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1?  Yes, go to #3.  No, go to #5.
3.  When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise) does the object retain the acceleration described in #1 and #2?   Yes, go to #4.  No, go to #5.
4.  The object is affected by the UA (what I have termed Dark Energy).
5.  The object is not affected by the UA/DE.

If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...

The FE creates a type of 'bow shock' within the DEF (Dark Energy Field).  This prevents the objects on the top of the FE from being directly affected by the UA/DE.  The field has nearly fully collapsed at about the altitude of the Sun and Moon, allowing for their suspension above the FE.

Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?

Well, if the FE was not accelerating 'so regularly' we wouldn't be around to know it.

There's still no explanation for differences in said acceleration around the world.

Since the acceleration is smaller as you climb a mountain and as you near the Equator, it means the UA is as stupid as the flat earth.

But hey, let's wait for the wrongineer to come up with another trolling text trying to ignore all that.

Quote

If no, then why does it accelerate the Earth but not me?

Because you are obviously not in direct contact with it.

Then obviously the acceleration isn't universal.

Which is obviously why I termed it 'Dark Energy'.