Universal Accelerator - how it works?

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 05:50:14 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 05:46:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 01:45:12 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 09:16:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 08:24:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 07:03:20 AM

Are you asking me a philosophical question?

No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.

If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum?  Is this just another sh*tpost?

You already let the secret out.

So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?

Please don't quote yourself gratuitously.  If you did not receive an answer, it is probably because people could not understand what you were asking or they thought it was a dumb question.  In this case, I thought it was both.

More like you don't have a response. Kind of like how you still haven't answered it. Just do your best ad hoc so I can destroy you.

I don't have a response to what?  A shitpost question?  You are asking for me to speculate about things in order to set me up.  I was not born yesterday. 

I's only a shitpost question because you know nothing about physics.

Is the UA a force?

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:21:53 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 05:50:14 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 05:46:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 01:45:12 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 09:16:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 08:24:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 07:03:20 AM

Are you asking me a philosophical question?

No. You seem to have secret knowledge of the UA so my questions should be easy.

If you think that my knowledge is secret, then what makes you think that I would disclose that information on a public forum?  Is this just another sh*tpost?

You already let the secret out.

So is the UA a force and can somehow tell the mass of objects or is it not a force and can some how accelerate objects?

Please don't quote yourself gratuitously.  If you did not receive an answer, it is probably because people could not understand what you were asking or they thought it was a dumb question.  In this case, I thought it was both.

More like you don't have a response. Kind of like how you still haven't answered it. Just do your best ad hoc so I can destroy you.

I don't have a response to what?  A shitpost question?  You are asking for me to speculate about things in order to set me up.  I was not born yesterday. 

I's only a shitpost question because you know nothing about physics.

Is the UA a force?

Can something accelerate with no forces being applied to it?

It depends on how you look at it. Gravitation can be said to do this. Theengineer is now claiming it doesn't. Either way if the UA is a force, why doesn't it accelerate different masses at different rates?

It depends on how you look at it. Gravitation can be said to do this. Theengineer is now claiming it doesn't. Either way if the UA is a force, why doesn't it accelerate different masses at different rates?

It is accelerating everything at the same rate.  It could be that the rate is simply a universal law, sort of a constant. 

If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?

If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?

If you put a 1 kg toy boat and a .5 kg toy boat in a flowing stream, they will eventually both go the same speed.  Also, if a fat man and a skinny man are both in the same car and the accelerator is depressed, they will both accelerate at the same rate along with the car that is much more massive than either of the two. 

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 08:51:28 PM

If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?

If you put a 1 kg toy boat and a .5 kg toy boat in a flowing stream, they will eventually both go the same speed.

That is not true. There acceleration will both end up at zero but there velocity will not necessarily be the same. Just like the objects terminal velocity would not be the same.
 

Also, if a fat man and a skinny man are both in the same car and the accelerator is depressed, they will both accelerate at the same rate along with the car that is much more massive than either of the two.

The car is able to supply two different forces. For instance the fat man will sink into the car seat more.

So I looked through the answers and found basically nothing valuable.

The wind can blow on a sail without blowing on things that are on the other side of the sail.

Irrelevant.

If you are going to answer any question, please point out which one you are asnwering and answer it directly without irrelevant comparisions that explains nothing and only proves you are open for word games.

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 07:29:47 AM

My question would be about energy. To accelerate something (as opposed to constant velocity - assuming no friction), don't you need energy somewhere?

What is causing the RET universe to constantly expand when gravity should have caused it to begin collapsing long ago?  Your scientists don't have all their answers, but you expect us to know everything.  Have you ever heard of double standards?

Irrelevant. Stop pushing RET stuff here. We are discussing UA, not explanding of the universe.

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:17:35 AM

Where is the energy for UA coming from?

Where is the energy for the continued expansion of your RET universe coming from?  Your scientists will admit that they do not know.  We do the same.

Someone on this forum made a math and found out that the UA would require an energy equivalent to mass of the Earth to accelerate the Earth for few years. Anyway, irrelevant answer.

So... most of the questions that I have asked in OP remain unanswered. Just some mere hand-waving and irrelevant arguments.

Where is your serious and direct answer?

What is interesting me the most is how the Moon and the Sun are accelerating with the same rate and keep the same velocity as the Earth even though the Earth is some sort of shield vs UA that blocks the force apparently enough to neglect it on the surface?

Anyone?

Or you just ignore the thread like it never existed so you could stand in your believes "undefeated"?

That will be like... 4th or 5th serious thread that I have started and that is basically left to die.

Do you know your own model? Why is it so hard to answer questions directlly about your own stuff?

Jroa runs away when the thread becomes too difficult.

What did I run away from?  Brouwer going into every thread and declaring that everything people say is irrelevant?  Sorry, but I have been done with his shit for weeks.  No matter what anyone says, he just says it is irrelevant.  I actually think he is an alt of Parsifal, but I can't prove it.  So, I quit responding to him.  I did not run away. 

Now, if someone wants to actually have a big kid discussion, I would be perfectly happy to oblige.  Kind of sad that there are not very many big kids around these days.   

This post is still waiting for a rebuttal.

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:55:42 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 28, 2015, 08:51:28 PM

If you take one force and play if to two different masses you wil get two different accelerations. Are you claiming F=m*a is not valid?

If you put a 1 kg toy boat and a .5 kg toy boat in a flowing stream, they will eventually both go the same speed.

That is not true. There acceleration will both end up at zero but there velocity will not necessarily be the same. Just like the objects terminal velocity would not be the same.
 

Quote

Also, if a fat man and a skinny man are both in the same car and the accelerator is depressed, they will both accelerate at the same rate along with the car that is much more massive than either of the two.

The car is able to supply two different forces. For instance the fat man will sink into the car seat more.

Brouwer going into every thread and declaring that everything people say is irrelevant?

Not really.

Sorry, but I have been done with his shit for weeks.  No matter what anyone says, he just says it is irrelevant.

Nope, if you are unable to provide a direct answer and play question-to-question games that lead to nowhere, how is that helpful or relevant?

If I am asking about the UA, you are just giving me some "wind blowing sail" that has nothing to do with the UA and does not explain anything regarding UA at all. I am expecting some science in your answer, not just random sentence about sailing.

If I am asking how two planets are affected by the gravitational force, I am expecting explaination for the planets, not for apples thrown to the air.

I actually think he is an alt of Parsifal, but I can't prove it.

Who is Parsifal? Also, you cannot prove this, because it is a false statement.

Now, if someone wants to actually have a big kid discussion, I would be perfectly happy to oblige.  Kind of sad that there are not very many big kids around these days.   

I would be happy if you could answer questions directly. I do want to have a discussion, but posting over and over things that provide no direct answer, changing the topic or spamming irrelevant things is what I am facing in most of my serious threads. That being said, you were the one doing this in one of my threads...

No matter what you ask, you are expecting a round Earth answer and will declare anything else to be irrelevant, you slimy scumbag.  Any answer you get is irrelevant unless it has to do with the round Earth, so you spam up the fora crying that you do not get answers, when you have gotten hundreds. 

No matter what you ask, you are expecting a round Earth answer and will declare anything else to be irrelevant,

No, I do expect the FE answer. You are just completely blind to this.

you slimy scumbag. 

Behave, you are in public place.

Any answer you get is irrelevant unless it has to do with the round Earth,

You are wrong, as usual.

so you spam up the fora crying that you do not get answers, when you have gotten hundreds.

I do not remember receiving the answer to following questions/problems:

1. How far is the Sun from the Earth, with proper explaination.
2. How things dissapear bottom first behind the horizon, with proper explaination.
3. How does the UA work (regarding this thread)?
4. How does the equinox over the equator work?
5. Why there is no FE map?
6. How do stars rotate around SCP in southern hemisphere, with proper explaination.
7. How a flat magnet disc can have two poles on the same (top) side?

Possibly more that I may not remember at this moment.

What I actually received for each question is:
1. Flawed argument and no further suggestions.
2. Flawed hand-waved argument and no further suggestion.
3. Hand-waved (irrelevant) argument for 1 of many questions.
4. No answer at all.
5. No real answer - just shirking based on lack of resources.
6. Celestial gears with no explanation and description.
7. No answer at all - only evasion from every single FEer.


Now, please go back to the OP. If you have answers regarding your model (FE one) and are willing to explain anything with a proper arugment, few people will be greatful. Including me.

Quit derailing.  This thread is about UA.  Your post is irrelevant. 

How does the UA work?

Plenty questions asked, still plenty to answer.

Few more questions to your "theory":

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).

1. When the object is sufficiently massive?

2. Why only sufficiently massive objects are accelerated?

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

4. 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...

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

Quit derailing. 

LOL!  The Derail King has spoken.

Nope, if you are unable to provide a direct answer and play question-to-question games that lead to nowhere, how is that helpful or relevant?

Oh, look what you did there...

Another mighty victory for the forces of circular sock-puppet logic!

In its justification for the use Universal Accelerator in lieu of gravitation FE supporters will try to bring up Einstein’s Equivalence Principle.
The article at this website http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6546.pdf discusses where the Equivalence Principle can be validly applied.
That is really a very telling article and should be read before anyone criticises too severely what I put here.

In its simplest form the FET uses the Equivalence Principle to replace the gravitational field observed on the earth's surface.  I contend that this is not a valid application of the Equivalence Principle.

we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
— Einstein, 1907

This very brief statement of Einstein needs a little qualification.  If the reference system under consideration is not small enough for the gravitational field to be considered constant over its range then there can be no complete physical equivalence.

This is stressed in the fuller presentation of the Equivalence Principle.

Importance of the Equivalence Principle
An equivalent formulation of the Principle of Equivalence is that at any local (that is, sufficiently small) region in spacetime it is possible to formulate the equations governing physical laws such that the effect of gravitation can be neglected. This in turn means that the Special Theory of Relativity is valid for that particular situation, and this in turn allows a number of things to be deduced because the solution of the equations for the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond the scope of our course, but is not particularly difficult for those trained in the required mathematics.  from http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html

In the case of the earth we can readily measure variations in the gravitational field.  These are due to predomonately to latitude and altitude, but there are more subtle variations due to the presence of ore bodies as used in gravimetric surveys for minerals.

As a result of this Universal Acceleration can replace a gravitational field only if the reference system (the whole earth) is sufficiently small for the gravitational field to be considered constant over the whole system.

This is clearly not satisfied, so the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the gravitational field. and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "gravitational field".

Are you claiming the Equivelance Principle is wrong? 

Are you claiming the Equivelance Principle is wrong? 

Nowhere did I claim that that the Equivalence Principle is wrong!

What I asserted was that it is completely unjustified to use the Equivalence Principle to replace gravity on the earth. The Equivalence Principle can only be applied to a region where the gravitational field is constant and the gravitation field on the earth is simply not constant.

You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. 

You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. 

Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.

You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. 

Maybe you could explain just how the gravitational acceleration is:
1) Lower as the altitude is increased - falling off as 1/R² and measurements have been done from high altitude aircraft and balloons.
2) higher at the poles than at the equators.

Yes, I have seen explanations based on the gravitational effects (oops, that doesn't exist!) of the sun, moon and stars.

Quote from: jroa on January 01, 2016, 04:48:21 AM

You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. 

Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.

Things tend to accelerate much easier when a force is applied. 

Quote from: jroa on January 01, 2016, 04:48:21 AM

You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. 

Maybe you could explain just how the gravitational acceleration is:
1) Lower as the altitude is increased - falling off as 1/R² and measurements have been done from high altitude aircraft and balloons.
2) higher at the poles than at the equators.

Yes, I have seen explanations based on the gravitational effects (oops, that doesn't exist!) of the sun, moon and stars.

You seem to have answered your own questions.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 01, 2016, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 01, 2016, 04:48:21 AM

You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. 

Maybe you could explain just how the gravitational acceleration is:
1) Lower as the altitude is increased - falling off as 1/R² and measurements have been done from high altitude aircraft and balloons.
2) higher at the poles than at the equators.

Yes, I have seen explanations based on the gravitational effects (oops, that doesn't exist!) of the sun, moon and stars.

You seem to have answered your own questions.

Well no, I am looking for how this can fit in with your "Universal Accelerator". 
If the (tiny) sun, moon and stars have "gravitational effects" on earth why doesn't the much larger mass of the earth have a much larger "gravitational effect" on objects on the earth? 
After all the "Flat Earth" must be roughly 25,000 miles in diameter (don't worry about arguing that now - I will tackle that later!) and who knows how thick, but it must be some tens of miles at the very least.  Your sun is only some 32 miles in diameter and the "planets and stars" are supposedly very tiny.
So why doesn't the Flat Earth provide its own gravity?

Quote from: sokarul on January 01, 2016, 10:02:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 01, 2016, 04:48:21 AM

You seem to be under the impression that the Equivalence Principle is the only force in the FE universe. 

Only an idiot would think the EP is a force.

Things tend to accelerate much easier when a force is applied. 

So you are claiming the Equivalence Principle is a force?   

I think you may be confusing cause and effect.

When did we change the topic from how the UA works to equivalence principle discussion?

3rd page and we are still at where we started - nowhere.